1951-12-06

CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. CASSELMAN, MR. WARD AND MR. HARRIS (DANFORTH) ON THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION TO PARLIAMENT

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know I shall be speaking for all hon. members on both sides of the house in expressing admiration for those beautiful flowers on the desk of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) and in extending to him our warmest congratulations on this the thirtieth anniversary of his first election to the House of Commons. During a great part of that time, and during the whole of the time that it has been my privilege to be in the house, the hon. member has served as the whip of his party. He has done so in a manner and with a courtesy that has been helpful in the conduct of the business of the house. I know that we all wish him many more years of useful public service.
Another hon. member, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward), was also elected to this house for the first time thirty years ago. I am sure that, though it may for some of the members of the house have been the result of an event that was not entirely pleasing to them, we were all glad to welcome him back to this house. I am sure that to him also all hon. members would wish many more years of useful public service.
The third member of the house who unfortunately is prevented by indisposition from being here today but who was elected at the same time and who has been over the thirty years a constant attendant in the house is the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). I am sure we regret that he is not here today so that we might have the opportunity of extending to him personally our congratulations and good wishes. I think all hon. members would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, in asking you to inform the hon. member that we are thinking of him today and that we are all extending to him our very best wishes.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasant thing to be able to join in felicitations of this kind. Naturally I join with the Prime
Minister in the good wishes he has extended not only to the members who are present but to the hon. member for Danforth who is unable to be here. I wish particularly to express my warm good wishes to the member of our party who sits behind me and whose desk is today decorated with these beautiful flowers to which the Prime Minister has referred. May I say that it is an impressive thing to be able to look back over thirty years and to realize that this still young-looking member of the House of Commons-not only young-looking, but, as years go in the political life of this country, young in fact and young in everything he does as well-has been here so long. May I say it is a great pleasure to be able to record the fact that since he was elected thirty years ago today he has never been defeated in his own constituency. The only time he has not sat in this house during those years was when he resigned his seat to make way for a very great Canadian who temporarily represented that constituency.
In addition to the fact that I join in the expressions of felicitation to him as a member of the house, I might add there is naturally the association in the same political party, and there is also a long personal friendship. And may I confess that perhaps there is also a special interest in the fact that he entered the House of Commons shortly after the first world war when he belonged to that very special branch of military service, the Canadian artillery. Having served with the 10th siege battery with distinction he carried forward into the years of peace the same sense of public service that had carried him outside of Canada at that time. I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in wishing him many happy years ahead of service to the public and in the association of the friends that he has made here in this House of Commons.
I regret very much that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) is not here similarly to receive the friendly expressions from his associates on both sides of the house. He has continuously represented a Toronto constituency throughout all those years, and at all times has been a faithful public servant in everything that these words mean. I know that everyone here will regret the fact that through indisposition he is unable to be with us, but we will certainly all wish him good health and many years of public service here
1632	HOUSE OF
Congratulations to Long-Service Members in the House of Commons and in the other capacities where he has served so well. I would like to include in that a reference to the kind of public service which so many men who are members of parliament give in other fields. For scores of years and longer to come the name of Joe Harris will be remembered in Toronto because of a very large and efficient hospital which, to a very considerable extent, has been the result of his untiring effort and activity. It is in things of that kind outside of the House of Commons that so many members of this house do serve their public in addition to their ordinary capacity as members of parliament.
May I further add my good wishes to the bon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward). In the very nature of the association it has not been my privilege to know him as well as the other two members whom I have mentioned; but he has carried with him throughout the years the friendship of those who have known him, and I join with the Prime Minister in wishing him also through the years ahead health, happiness and the enjoyment of his years of service.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: should like to associate this group with what the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have said in congratulating these three remaining members of the 1921 general election. They are members who have been engaged almost continuously since that time in the work and in the life of this parliament. We wish them many more useful years in this house.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: It is the
desire of the members of the Social Credit group to be associated with the kind words, and well earned words of praise, which have already been offered in recognition of the thirtieth anniversary of the three hon. members.


Mr. A. C. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, as one whose duties as whip for approximately the last twenty years of this parliament have curtailed the opportunities to express views in the house, I know I will find it most difficult to express the thoughts that have come to my mind in the last few minutes.
It was my privilege in my early years to be given the confidence of the electorate in my district, a confidence which has been continuous over the last three decades. I think you would expect me to express my deepest thanks to the electorate of Grenville-Dundas for their kindness in doing so. This I now do.
During that period of time as a member of this house, I have seen many changes, advances which have been to a large degree
fMr. Drew.]

advantageous not only to my constituents but to the people of Canada as a whole.
Over this period of time it has been my privilege to make the acquaintance and, I hope, gain the friendship, of many members from all parts of Canada. That I consider one of my most precious possessions. I sincerely hope that they feel towards me the way I feel towards them. To have been associated with so many people of such divergent views has, I trust, impressed me in such a way that I bear ill will to no one.
I am very sorry that my friend the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) is not here today. I am delighted to know that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) is here today. I know that he needs sympathy, but possibly not quite as much as I do. I take this opportunity to express to the Prime Minister, to my leader, to the leader of the C.C.F. party for the time being, the hon. member for Vancouver East, and to the hon. member for Lethbridge my thanks for the kind words which they have uttered with respect to me.
I trust that, having lost twenty minutes already in the business of the house as a result of the fact that I have been here a long time, the house will be able to get down and proceed with the urgent business that is before it.



COMBINES LEGISLATION


Mr. Roland Beaudry (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, my attention has been drawn to a news item in today's Globe and Mail. Referring to yesterday's sittings of the combines committee the article says in part:
Throughout today's committee divisions Mr. Beaudry and Mr. Murray bolted the government ranks and consistently voted with the minority group-
I say that it requires a phenomenal amount of imagination to construe as "bolting" my affirmative vote on a motion moved by myself on a question of procedure. I have never bolted the government ranks, and I am reasonably sure that the dictates of my heart and of my reason will make me live and die a liberal.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED REMARKS OF MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN WINNIPEG &quot;FREE PRESS&quot;

George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Monday last a question was raised by the hon. member for

Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in reference to a statement which had been made in regard to legislation that was to be introduced in this house. I do believe that this is something that should be definitely placed before the house, in view of the stage that this session has now reached and in View of the very positive statements contained in a Canadian Press dispatch of December 1 from Calgary, which was referred to in this house yesterday during a debate. I would point out that the Canadian Press dispatch, to which I refer, in addition to indicating that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was prepared to recommend certain legislation, contained statements of a positive nature which must have left that impression upon the minds of those who read the statement.
I would quote the positive statement contained in the Canadian Press dispatch of December 1 from Calgary, which says:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe, trade minister, said Friday that financial aid for distressed prairie grain growers is in prospect for early in the new year.
And then later on, after indicating his own willingness to place this before the house, and to support it, the report goes on to say:
Mr. Howe said the legislation would be introduced at the current session of parliament in the expectation the plan would be in operation* by the early part of January.
The question of privilege is this: If that press report is correct, then the minister responsible for the handling of grain has stated there would be legislation during this session which will provide payments to the farmers in January. If that is correct, then naturally the farmers in making their arrangements, in those distressed areas where harvesting has been seriously affected by the weather, would wish to know. If that is not a statement of policy and if it does not represent the government's intention, then at the earliest possible date they also should know it. In addition to that, since what is reported does not constitute a statement of policy by that minister in the house, and as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has had an opportunity to give the matter further consideration, would he inform us as to what the exact position of the government is?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is that it is never responsible for newspaper reports. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said on several occasions in this house that this matter was under consideration, and that there would be an announcement of the measures that the government might find it appropriate to recommend for the relief of those who,
Grain
because of circumstances, were prevented from deriving immediate advances or benefits from their expected crop.
That is still the situation. And, although I have no right to divulge what goes on in council meetings, I can say the matter has been considered-on the latest occasion this morning. In the circumstances, and because of the information that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is expected to bring back tomorrow morning, we did feel that we wished to have a further conference with him, and I did not put on the order paper this afternoon the notice of a resolution that had been prepared. One aspect of the matter under consideration has been as to whether or not legislation was required to deal with the situation.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was in the west a while ago, just before he left for Rome, and had interviews with many of those representing large sections of the grain growers; and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has met the representatives of the grain growers at Calgary, at Edmonton and in Winnipeg, and has canvassed the situation. We expect it will now be possible, within the next two or three days, to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the matter can be dealt with without legislation, or if in fact it does require legislation. I am inclined to think it will require legislation, no matter what form the emergency assistance takes. But that is a matter upon which I would not wish to make a definite pronouncement at this time.
I saw the suggestion somewhere that there had been an undertaking that there would be no further legislation. That may have been made, in general terms. But I think it had been made clear to the house, from the first time the question arose, that the government was studying the situation and would determine what recommendation to make to assist in dealing with it in view of the fact that it has arisen out of climatic and other unavoidable circumstances.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize of course that any statement that there will be no further legislation is always subject to events that may occur. I would point out, however, that this has been under consideration for some time. I do point out further that if the Prime Minister's words are to be taken as an indication that something is to be done along the lines mentioned, then once again we are confronted with the fact that a statement of policy has been made outside the house, instead of being presented in the usual way.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have read the clippings from the papers in Calgary and Edmonton.

Inquiries of the Ministry They contain the statement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said that something should be done, but they do not indicate in any way what form it would take. I do not know where the Canadian Press got the information for the dispatch that was published in Winnipeg. At the time it appeared in Winnipeg the Minister of Trade and Commerce had not yet reached Winnipeg.


George Alexander Drew: Do I take it, then, that the Prime Minister does in fact say that the quotations from the Canadian Press dispatch to which I have referred do not correctly represent the situation, so far as the government is concerned, as of December 1?


Mr. SI. Laurent:: No, I shall not say and I cannot say that there was not something said that would justify the report. The Canadian Press is usually careful, although there are times when statements are expanded or backgrounded. I do not know to what extent that may have been done in this case.



NATIONAL GALLERY


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the national gallery of Canada to increase the number of members of the board of trustees; to provide that the board may enter into contracts and may dispose of property vested in the board; to provide for a national gallery purchase account and for a national gallery special operating account to meet the expenditures of the board; and to provide further for the appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act of the necessary officers, clerks and employees.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Is he prepared to make a statement regarding the degree to which cigarette smuggling is taking place, what is being done to meet the situation, and whether consideration has been given to the removal of the tax, in part, in order to alleviate the situation?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the question was sent to me by the hon. member, in which he asks what is being done with a view to protecting the Canadian public from the effects of cigarette smuggling. Customs officers at border points are alive to the situation and I understand that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have increased the border patrols in those districts where cigarette smuggling is prevalent and have also intensified their efforts inland. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that the penalties for smuggling are severe and one would naturally expect that they would act as a deterrent to that type of law breaking.
With reference to his question as to whether consideration is being given to a reduction in the tax, may I say that that is not a matter for my department. We are only the administrators of the law and if the tax should be changed at any time we will so regulate our administration as to carry it out.



EXPORT OF CANADIAN FUNDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of a reply made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) on November 28, as reported on page 1401 of Hansard. In the light of the blackmail being faced by Canadians of Chinese origin and the conditions of terror imposed on their families in China, could the minister give us some assurance that every facility will be afforded under the regulations to permit them to bring their families to this country of decency and security?


Walter Edward Harris: As the house knows, in the past four years a number of changes have been made in the regulations with respect to immigration from China. The result has been that immigration from China has increased from seven in 1946 to about 2,500 this year. We accept the wife or husband and unmarried children under twenty-one years of age of a Canadian citizen of Chinese origin. We announced in June that we would accept unmarried children up to the age of twenty-five years under special circumstances.
We recognize that Canadian citizens of Chinese origin are greatly concerned about the welfare of their children and relatives in China. Last year we added to the staff

at Hong Kong, and have made further additions this year. We have also added to the staff of the Chinese section of the immigration branch at headquarters here in Ottawa.
The result has been that the time between the receipt of an application and the granting of approval has been considerably shortened in Canada and the time taken to process immigrants in Hong Kong has been greatly reduced. As a matter of fact, the backlog of those in Hong Kong awaiting processing at the moment is only about the number which could be handled in the course of a month.
The government is most sympathetic toward Canadian citizens of Chinese origin who wish to bring forward their dependents and relatives within the regulations and we are doing everything we can to expedite the processing. I should say that we do not communicate with the intended immigrant in the interior of China. It is left to the parent or applicant to get in touch with him and ask him to come out to Hong Kong. When these people reach Hong Kong we handle them as expeditiously as possible and we are quite prepared to expand our services in any way in order to handle this group of immigrants.


Angus MacInnis: With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South, does the Chinese government restrict in any way the movement of those who wish to emigrate to Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: We have no
knowledge of any direct restriction because, as I say, the applicant here notifies his relative in China to come to Hong Kong for examination, and they are still coming. The numbers who arrive are in the order of about 200 or 225 a month, and are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible.


Mr. Fair:: I should like to inquire whether the word "children" also includes adopted children.


Walter Edward Harris: No, it does not.



WAR DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to one which I addressed to him on November 20 before the orders of the day. At that time I asked what the situation then was in regard to the possibility of making at least an interim payment to those who had suffered as a result of enemy action 'during the past 04699-lPfi
Inquiries of the Ministry war, with particular reference to enemy action in the Pacific. The Prime Minister pointed out that the matter was under consideration and that an answer would presently be given to a question which was then on the order paper. That question was answered on November 26 by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) and it showed that the custodian had approximately $3,425,000 of assets under his control which had formerly been owned by Japanese enemies. The answer of the Secretary of State, as reported on page 1304 of Hansard, goes on to state:
When the treaty of peace is ratified such assets will be at the disposal of the Canadian government.
In view of the real and terrible hardship which to my knowledge is being suffered by some women whose husbands were starved as a consequence of action in the Pacific and who are desperately in need of some temporary assistance at this particular time, and under the weather conditions they will have to face, I should like to know if it is possible to provide some interim monthly payments which will give them some feeling of security during the winter months.
At times it is only by quoting a particular case as an illustration that we can understand the general problem. There is a lady here in Ottawa, the wife of a Canadian bank manager who died from starvation in a Japanese prison camp, whose physical condition was severely impaired by near starvation to the extent that she is unable to work and cannot look to anyone for assistance. It seems to me that there could be no question about the legitimacy of this claim and that some substantial financial payment should be made to give her compensation at least in a limited degree for what she has suffered.
I use that case only as an illustration of a number of cases. I ask the Prime Minister if at this particular time of the year it is not possible to make some interim payment.


Right Hon. L'. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The general principles recommended by the right hon. Chief Justice Ilsley as commissioner were accepted by council some days ago and regulations for the method of handling applications for interim payments are being drafted. When instructions were issued for their drafting special recommendation was made that that be done with dispatch because we wished to be able to proceed with the implementation before Christmas.
The case the hon. member refers to is one that gave considerable difficulty with respect to the application of the principle because this lady's husband had formerly been a bank manager and in that capacity could have been regarded as having been domiciled in

Inquiries of the Ministry Canada. However, when he retired from the bank he went into business on his own in the Pacific and that created the legal position where his domicile was fixed there. The government is prepared to assume whatever risk may be involved in recognizing the claim of a Canadian national in those circumstances and it does not feel that it will in any serious way affect the rights of others who may have claims. If we made a mistake in that respect and it were found that it did affect other rights we would come to the house, declare the mistake and ask for an appropriation to make good whatever the prejudice to others might be.


George Alexander Drew: Do I take it that some early action will be taken?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, the general principles have been approved. Instructions were issued on the draft regulations that have to be made as directives to those who will be handling the claims, and when those instructions were issued they were asked to proceed with as great dispatch as possible because Christmas was in the offing.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is ready to answer the question I asked yesterday with respect to allowing passengers in the operations compartments of airplanes?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I have an answer to the hon. gentleman's question, which was as follows:
Has the Department of Transport changed its regulations recently in regard to not allowing Trans-Canada Air Lines and other commercial air lines to carry passengers on flight decks . . .
The answer is that the air regulations of the Department of Transport deal with airworthiness, safety, and competency and responsibility of personnel generally, but there are no specific regulations relating to access to the flight decks of commercial aircraft.


George Alexander Drew: Is it not so, that the real issue which is causing the present difficulty is the question of the authority of the captain of the aircraft over the flight deck?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to say whether or not that is the question. The air transport board is looking into three or four cases that have arisen within the last three or four days. As I understand it, the position is this, whether or not Trans-Canada Air Lines,

which issues its own regulations with reference to its personnel going on the flight deck, will be maintained in its view, or whether or not the resolution of the pilots' association, which stipulates that none but the air crew shall go on the flight deck, shall predominate. The air transport board has regulations but they do not cover this point. Until we have all the facts before us I think it would be foolish to attempt to be an umpire between the two. After all, it is a matter for the air line pilots on the one hand and T.C.A. on the other to get together and come to some understanding. If that is possible, I think we can bring in a regulation which will meet the situation.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to suggest to the Minister of Transport that regard should be had to this point, in view of the immense importance of the question that has arisen. As I understand it-and I think he will find there is no question about it-the point raised by the resolution of the air pilots' association is the authority of the captain over the flight deck and whether or not he is in fact the captain of the ship so far as what one might regard as the bridge of the aircraft is concerned. Apparently the point is that people who are not members of the crew may be placed in the flight deck compartment without consulting the captain, and that raises the question whether the captain has authority on the flight deck or whether he has not. I might say that the air regulations in the United States and Great Britain make it clear that the captain has absolute authority. I suggest that point is one that should not simply be left to negotiation but should be determined.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not suggesting that it be left to negotiation. All I am saying is that until the' air transport board has the facts it is pretty difficult to determine the point.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to answer the question that I asked him yesterday?


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough West asked two questions. They were:
Will the parliamentary assistant make a statement as to why passengers have been sold tickets in the operations compartment of Trans-Canada Air Lines planes, and also why pilots have been suspended for obeying the Department of Transport regulations and safety measures?
The answer to the first question is that' there have been no tickets sold to anyone to occupy space in the operations compartment or flight deck on Trans-Canada Air Lines

planes. The answer to the second question is that no pilots have been suspended for obeying the Department of Transport regulations and safety measures.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If tickets are not sold for the operations compartment, then who are the people and how many of them are there who have been allowed to travel free in such compartments?


George James McIlraith: Obviously I cannot answer that question offhand. I do not know whether it is possible to get the information concerning who the people are. However, I will try to get whatever information I can and bring it forward.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, with perhaps some extension of the strict interpretation of the rules, I should like to suggest, because of the importance of this matter and the suggestion in the press that there even may be a strike, that the subject should be given the most urgent consideration. I am sure that the point is that passes are used for trips on the flight deck without the captain knowing anything about it. Some time ago the department was warned there is a danger factor involved which the pilots are not willing to accept.



TEXTILES AND VEGETABLE OILS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is an investigation being conducted into the dumping of textiles from communist countries into Canada, and particularly the dumping of gloves from Czechoslovakia?. What course is going to be followed in order to meet the situation?


Hon.. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The matter of the value of fabric gloves imported from Czechoslovakia has been drawn to my attention by a number of Canadian manufacturers. An examination of invoices covering such gloves does not disclose any evidence of dumping, but the department is making inquiries in regard to the values at which these gloves are being sold for consumption in Czechoslovakia. I might point out to the house that I am sure hon. members will appreciate the difficulties involved in getting information with reference to values. Matters of exchange and national excise taxes all enter into the question, and we find it 94699-1051
Inquiries of the Ministry difficult to get proper information with reference to the values in the country of origin. We use such officers as we have in Europe in order to obtain the information. However, shortly a delegation from Czechoslovakia is to visit this country, and we expect to have a conference with them with a view to setting up better facilities for obtaining information.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Will the same investigation be carried out with respect to the dumping of cheap vegetable oils used in the manufacture of oleomargarine?


James Joseph McCann: Investigations are being continuously carried on with reference to the importation of all goods into this country.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: On November 12 a question of mine inquiring as to expenditures on recruiting and recruiting advertising was passed as an order for return. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence when I may expect to have the return tabled, and whether he will please see if he can speed it up.


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: will have to look into the matter.



KURT MEYER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. O. Campney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: In
his remarks in the house yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) made extensive reference to the Kurt Meyer case. In that connection he referred to a statement which I made in the house on November 26, concerning the transfer of Kurt Meyer from Dorchester penitentiary to a prison for war criminals under the administration of the United Kingdom at Werl, Germany. In view of the hon. member's remarks, and of the discussion taking place generally concerning this matter, I should like to restate very briefly the salient facts of the case.
Meyer was tried as a war criminal, in accordance with the procedure established for the trial of war criminals, following the conclusion of the second world war. He was convicted on certain of the charges brought against him. As a result of that conviction he was sentenced to death. His sentence was

Inquiries of the Ministry reviewed, in accordance also with the procedure with respect to trials of war criminals, by the general officer commanding, third Canadian infantry division, who commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.
Meyer was subsequently brought to Canada and incarcerated in Dorchester penitentiary in the month of May, 1946. Because Meyer was the only German convicted of a war crime imprisoned anywhere in Canada or, in fact, outside Germany, he was in October last transferred to a prison for war criminals in Germany at Werl, under the administration of the United Kingdom. As I stated on November 26, and for reasons therein set out, he became subject to the general discipline and regulations applicable to all war criminals in that prison as administered by the United Kingdom authorities. It was under rules as applied by the United Kingdom authorities to all prisoners incarcerated at Werl he applied for and was granted compassionate leave a short time ago.
Because Meyer by order in council was placed under the rules and regulations of the prison at Werl, his application for compassionate leave was dealt with in the ordinary way and, as it was a matter of prison administration, without reference to the Canadian government. As the Minister of National Defence stated in the House of Commons on October 22, at page 245 of Hansard:
. . , the prison in which he-
That is Meyer.
-is now incarcerated, is under the control of the United Kingdom occupation authorities in Germany but they have no power to interfere with his sentence.
Meyer's sentence was and remains exclusively within the control of the Canadian government, and has been in no way changed.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of regard for the fighting ability of the German soldier. I have every reason to have that regard because I experienced the pleasure of fighting against him. A question has been raised in this house concerning a German major general. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) has made a statement. This man was tried fairly, I am sure, was found guilty and sentenced to death. One of our generals commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This matter is of vital
importance to the people of Canada, particularly those who have served overseas in the various wars. Either this man should have a retrial or he should go to the penitentiary and properly serve his life sentence.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. When does the fisheries prices support board expect to issue cheques to the fishermen in payment of the subsidy recommended for the 1950 catch of salt codfish in Newfoundland?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member for St. John's West sent notice of his question to me. At the moment 600 fishermen have reported on the semi-dry salt codfish, and these submissions have been examined. The cheques will be sent out before the end of the year, and I hope before Christmas.
With regard to the offshore codfish, some 13,500 fishermen have made returns. Evidently these returns are not all in yet, and are coming in very slowly. We believe they will be completed so that the cheques can be issued sometime in January.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY  DEEP WATERWAY BETWEEN MONTREAL AND LAKE ERIE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient, for the purpose of providing a deep waterway between Montreal and lake Erie, to create a corporation to be called "The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority" with power, inter alia, to expropriate:	to construct, maintain and operate
all necessary works; to borrow amounts not exceeding three hundred million dollars; to establish tariffs of tolls and to employ such officers and employees as may be required for the purposes of the authority.
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, after the members who are apparently making up their minds whether they will stay or go have settled down, I shall proceed with my discussion from the point at which I left off when this debate was adjourned. The first thing I want to make clear is that a proper analysis of the subject matter before the house would take more time than is allowed a private member or than could comfortably be occupied by a cabinet minister at one session.
When I concluded my remarks I was documenting the fears that exist in the maritime provinces of the repercussions that the final completion of this seaway project may have on the economy of the maritimes. I

believe that the evidence I submitted from organizations that have studied the matter expressed legitimate fears. For example, I was pointing out that if any of the statements made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in the house, or by any of the other speakers outside the house, had contained a suggestion that some consideration would be given to future development in the mard-times, those fears might have been eased. But the reverse is true. Every statement at which I have looked seems to indicate that, instead of expanding or retaining the organizations that belong in the maritimes, these organizations were going to be further centralized.
I was dealing with the shipping industry. The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made statements outside the house clearly indicating that, so far as the future of the shipping industry was concerned, the hopes were that it would be centred in the head of the lakes so far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce was concerned, but the Minister of Transport was a little more general. If a statement had been made that there was a possibility that completion of this seaway would stimulate or add to the shipbuilding industry of the maritime provinces, the feeling would have been different. At present the Canadian shipbuilding industry is centred in the maritimes; that is where it got its start. Through confederation these industries over the years have been siphoned off. It would have at least given us the impression that there is some thinking of the final stages of this development assisting or bringing some benefits to the maritime provinces. I suggest that the miners of Nova Scotia have a legitimate fear. They have presented their case, and I have put it on the record here. A few days ago the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. MacLean) received a return with respect to a question as to what progress, if any, had been made in research in taking oil from coal. The answer he received was rather discouraging. There were not any figures. Apparently there was not any interest in the matter. Then I pick up a statement like this in the press. This again is from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. They do a good research job for the maritimes, and they have this to say:
In the matter of utilization of coal, this coal-producing province usually can sympathize with the lady who is "always a bridesmaid, but never a bride." And so we have this little dispatch from North Sydney: "South America took it away again today. The freighter Shan Trader sailed for Brazil with a cargo of 10,000 tons of specially selected coal from Dosco's old Sydney collieries, which will be processed into nylons. Princess colliery coal was selected for the nylon trade after a series of tests."
St. Lawrence Waterway
That is rather disconcerting and I think it reflects on the thinking of our research people -and we have a great many of them- centred in this city. If it is possible to establish in Brazil an industry manufacturing nylons-and there is a great demand for nylon-and if it is economic to transport coal from Nova Scotia to Brazil and to process that coal into a product that is easily marketed, it clearly shows that what I have said about the thinking of those in the ivory towers in Ottawa is correct. Why have we not done enough thinking to establish the utilization of the product of an industry that is losing its place in our economy because of the advance of natural gas, oil and other commodities? I merely use that as an illustration to show that, as to the maritimes, our thinking leaves much to be desired.
All of the evidence I have put on the record so far has been from organizations that have expressed legitimate fears that the ultimate development of this St. Lawrence seaway means that they are going to lose their means of livelihood. I hope that is not true.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not, I am sure.


Clarence Gillis: When the minister gets to his feet again, I hope that he is going to give us some reassuring remarks on some of the things that I think should be coupled up with this seaway, and I will mention them before I get through. When you threaten the bread and butter of an individual or a group of individuals, the natural thing is for him or them to fight back. To get an illustration, we have only to look at the members of parliament at any time an election is coming up. They fight to get back here. They go out and put on quite a show; they spend money. For a great many of them it is to some extent their means of livelihood. We want to try to place ourselves in the other fellow's position-for example, if you were a coal miner, a steelworker or a small farmer in the maritime provinces, and particularly if you have read the history of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick since confederation-and take a look at the industries that have been lost over the years. It makes you stop and think, because that is where people live, eat and work; and they want to stay there. It is their home. I think the fears expressed by the organizations whose submissions I put on the record are quite legitimate.	.
When I began my remarks I said that the political party to which I belong in that province are not unalterably opposed to this project. While they too fear, nevertheless
1640	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway they are prepared to give the government the credit for honesty of intention and to believe that it is not the intention of the government to injure any section of the country if it is possible to avoid doing so.
I have here in my hand a survey of this project and its implications when completed. It is dated November 9, 1951. The man who writes this report is Professor David Cass-Beggs of Toronto. The caption of ir is: "The Need for a Federal Authority with Wider Responsibilities". Just a week or so ago I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) quote Professor Cass-Beggs with approval on a survey that he made for the Saskatchewan government, I think it was, in regard to that irrigation project that has been under consideration there for some years. I am not going to read this report but I will say that it is a thought-provoking one. I think it is a fair report. It covers the implication in each province. I agree with this report.
I think it is an excellent one. In his conclusions, Professor Cass-Beggs points out that, in his opinion, this St. Lawrence seaway with its related developments should be, so far as it is possible to make it, the kind of project that could be likened to the Tennessee valley project in the United States, better known as the TVA. If that is followed through, we should be glad if the Minister of Transport, when he is summing up in this debate, can give the members of this house the assurance that the authority now being set up will be, in so far as it is possible to make it, the kind of authority that will be a continuing one, that will have the kind of qualified personnel on it that will not only have authority and the power to develop the power in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec but will also have the power to follow through, so that any potential development that may be available because of this St. Lawrence seaway, from coast to coast, could be undertaken under the management of that authority, subject to the approval of this house, of course, from time to time. We should like to be assured that that is the kind of authority that the minister visualizes that we are setting up at this time. For example, I should like from the minister the assurance that when this authority is set up and when the preliminary things that have to be done are completed, this authority would have the right to complete the study of this project which is better known as the "Quoddy" project in the province of New Brunswick. There is a power development there, and I have the report in my hand. All that the province of New Brunswick is asking for with respect to that power project is that the government would continue the investigation into the possibilities of developing that power in that area. According IMr. Gillis.]

to this report, it will cost approximately $3 million to complete the investigation. If the evidence then proves that it is a possible and feasible project it could be undertaken, in co-operation with the United States authorities, to serve the same purpose in Maine, New Hampshire and New Brunswick as the power project now agreed to by the Ontario and federal governments under the terms of the resolution which the minister has on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Gillis: I will not be very long. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for calling my attention to it. I should like the assurance of the minister that that project can be developed. I hold in my hand a clipping date-lined Quincy, Massachusetts, December 3, which reads:
Sidney Grossman, building materials firm executive. said today he is prepared to raise $10 million to develop the Passamaquoddy project as a private venture.
Apparently there is private capital in the United States prepared to do something about that particular power project. When the minister closes the debate I should like him to tell me whether the authority that is being set up will be empowered to undertake that kind of development in that province, or at least have power to complete it.
The Saint John river project is another power project. It is feasible. All the evidence you can examine shows that. It is necessary; it is feasible; it is desirable. What I am afraid of, under this development as we visualize it at the present time, is that we are going to duplicate the economic organizations that they have in the United States; that Ontario and Quebec are to be placed in the same position as the states of New York and Pennsylvania are in the United States, with complete centralization of everything. Anyone who takes a drive through the states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine in the United States will agree that that end of the country has been very badly neglected. While the disabilities of the maritimes may be great in comparison with central Canada at the present time, they are as nothing in comparison with what exists between the eastern United States and the central United States. I think that is a bad development; I think it is an unequal development; and I think it is a dangerous development.
If our fears of an over-all atomic war are well grounded, a greater decentralization of

Industry is necessary on this continent. Do not forget that if war comes this will be the target. We do not want to have all our eggs in one basket where they can be knocked out overnight. In that respect I think the United States has a bad development. A press item just a couple of nights ago pointed out that one of their top flight men in the field of atomic war or its potentialities emphasized to the defence organizations in the United States the urgent necessity of considering decentralization of industry in that country. I merely leave that thought with the minister, because that seems to be the kind of world that we are going to live in in the future. We have to keep our guard up, and it is much easier to plan your industries on a decentralized basis than to have to drag them somewhere in the middle of a war, as some other countries had to do in the last war.
I could say a great deal on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I could talk on it for a long time. No one should be uninformed on it. The material that has been available over the years and is available now on this subject, for and against it, is sufficient to keep one interested for a long time. I want to tell the minister that while I put a lot of evidence on the record that expressed fear as far as the maritimes are concerned-I think justifiable fear of people who are directly affected-at the same time I am not unalterably opposed to it. A good feature about it is that it is a government development. It is a development that can be watched by hon. members. The authority now being set up has great possibilities. When the minister closes the debate I would like his assurance that the body to be set up will have authority, in addition to developing the power end of it in the centre of Canada, to take on the power possibilities in New Brunswick and in other parts of the country that have been under consideration for some time. I would like his assurance that consideration will be given to the possibility of power from coal in parts of the country where it is necessary to do that, and that more attention should be given by an authority of this kind to the development of other industries based on coal, in view of the fact that coal as a fuel is threatened from many directions today.
I thank hon. members for granting me an extension of time. I will be listening with interest to the minister's reply and the assurances that I hope he is going to give us.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very remiss in my duty indeed if I did not have a word to say on this outstanding project. My first word is to
St. Lawrence Waterway congratulate the minister on his courage and foresight and on the splendid way that he expressed them in his brief. Fort William will be the last port of call for the ships coming up the great lakes. I can see that first ship coming up. It may be that the premier of Ontario will be on that ship as well as the Prime Minister of Canada.
I can think-at least I am free to think- that one of the outstanding reasons why the provincial government of Ontario was elected was the co-operation of the premier of the province with the dominion on this great question. That may not be the only reason, but to us at the lakehead it was an outstanding reason.
Unlike the United States, we are not self-contained. The United States can pretty well get along without the waterways. The tie that binds us to the United States is a tender one. Perhaps in no other place, though I come from the old land, have we so many near relatives as we have in the United States. But the United States can get along without this waterway, while we cannot. It now looks as if Canada was not going to try to get along without it very much longer. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) addressed a group of leaders in Washington the other day he said: "We are not bluffing." And any minister and any government that declines to wait ten years, or more than double that, for the United States to make up its mind to co-operate is not bluffing. When the United States knows that this resolution is before the House of Commons it will be more proof that we mean business.
It has been said that we need this waterway. We need it for at least four reasons. The first one is power. When we see in different parts of Ontario steam plants being built to generate electricity it is time for our government to wake up. I know the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) thinks that this is only for Ontario. That is only his argument, and I do not think he is convinced that he is right. Anyone who will say that this is for Ontario only is thinking in the wrong direction and for the sake of argument.
He also said there was no scarcity of ships on the great lakes. Had he been at the lake-head when that bottleneck occurred in connection with the handling of grain he would know that ships were taken off the work of carrying ore and placed on that of carrying grain.


Clarence Gillis: I know the hon. member wishes to be fair and accurate. I said I had never heard the question raised in the house concerning a shortage of ships for the movement of grain; and I have not.
1642	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you. I am glad you are changing your mind.


Clarence Gillis: I am not changing my mind; I am putting you straight; and sometimes that is a difficult task.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The hon. member's statement is reported in Hansard, that there was a shortage of ships on the great lakes. If that is not so, then I forgive him.


Clarence Gillis: I suggest you read Hansard more carefully.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We need power in Ontario, and if we do not have that power to develop our raw materials, then our railways will suffer. How are we going to manufacture our raw materials if we have not the power?
The second reason for the development is that of navigation, and it will be concerned principally with the carrying of freight. We expect however that passengers will be carried, as well. I am not going to say much more along this line. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has said that this great waterways development will be another step to keep pace with the agricultural and industrial development of our country. If we are going to keep up our industrial development, then we must have our waterways.
I know there is opposition to this project.
I have received long letters and resolutions from the constituency of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Their objections are reasonable, from their point of view, but not from the point of view of the whole of Canada. This country does not begin at Montreal and end at Toronto. The centre and hub of Canada is at Fort William; and when these waterways are developed, it will be a revelation to many to realize that there is as much beyond the great lakes as there is on this side of them. We were taught at school that when one part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers. If Ottawa is the orains of Canada, then Ontario is the stomach. If we are going to supply the needs of industry we will have to have this great waterways development. To me it is absolutely necessary.
A further objection is that the project will cost too much. I ask hon. members to keep in mind that Canada built the longest railway in the world, and that it was done many long years ago at a time when many who now sit in this chamber were unborn. That railway was paid for. Of course in the building there was assistance from the Scottish, the English and the Irish; but those who invested their money did not lose it. If they could build 

the longest railway in the world, why cannot we at this time build a great waterways system? We will do it.
I am sure when we see the first ship coming up into the Kam river and turning around in that big basin in which the boats turn, it will be a thrilling sight. I hope that no matter what the opposition may be, or where it comes from, the minister will look at it fairly and squarely, so that he may be fair not only to Nova Scotia and the east but also to others.
I know that if we had had ships when the bottleneck occurred in connection with the carrying of wheat-and there have been other bottlenecks-it would have helped materially in the shipment of that grain. Again I congratulate the minister upon his courage and foresight, and I hope he will stick to his job.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to follow the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) in his remarks. He has always been most complimentary to the government; no matter what it has done, it has always been right, so far as he is concerned. While I cannot agree with him in that, I am not going to enter into an argument at this time.
I do agree to a great extent with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I should like to congratulate him upon having made an excellent case for the maritime provinces. I do not suppose any part of Canada would be more adversely affected by this project than would Cape Breton, nor is there any part of Canada that would benefit to a greater extent than Cape Breton, if the recommendation made by the hon. member were carried out.
He has placed on Hansard statements from a number of sources in the maritime provinces, particularly one from the united mine workers of his own district. I agree with almost every paragraph of their recommendations. I would add that the united mine workers of the district from which the hon. member comes is the same organization which governs the miners ar Minto, in my constituency.
We are not as definitely concerned as are the miners in Cape Breton, because our New Brunswick coal enjoys, more or less, a local market, and we do not feel our market will be adversely affected to the same extent as will the coal industry of Nova Scotia.
Without the power to look into the future it is difficult to estimate just what the development of the St. Lawrence seaway will mean to this country. We have seen great developments and great undertakings in the

past, of which some have turned out as anticipated, while others have not been so successful. There are very few that have not gone beyond the estimated cost for their construction; on the contrary, most have cost two or three times as much. I fear this St. Lawrence seaway development will be far more expensive than is expected.
In this connection I would refer to the building of the Hudson Bay railway to the port of Churchill. With a number of members of parliament I visited that port last winter and was amazed at the barrenness of the country. It occurred to me then that the building of the Hudson Bay railway must have been more or less of a mistake. That was impressed more upon my mind when I looked at the great grain elevator at Churchill and was told that the shipping season opens in August and closes before October and that last year only twelve ships sailed from that port with grain for Europe. When that matter was before the house all parties were in favour of building the railroad in the belief that it would mean much to the people of western Canada by providing a cheaper method of shipping grain across the ocean. That expectation has not been realized.
As I understand it, there are four principal reasons for the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway. The minister mentioned them the other day and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) referred to them this afternoon. The first reason is that it will provide a cheaper means of carrying the produce of central and western Canada to the markets of the world and for the carrying of iron ore to central Canada and the United States. Another reason was that it would provide more cheap power for Ontario and possibly Quebec; and the fourth reason was that it was necessary for the defence of Canada.
Let us look at the first reason, that it will provide lower freight rates for the people in central and western Canada. The hon. member for Fort William said that the railroads of Canada are in favour of the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. The hon. member must have been reading material which I have not seen because any report or statement that has come to my notice indicates that the feeling of the railroads is much to the contrary, that they are much concerned over the development of the St. Lawrence seaway because they believe it will interfere with their freight revenues. There is no doubt in my mind that considerable traffic will be taken from the railroads.
I do not think it is necessary to point out that today the railroads of Canada are having a desperate struggle to maintain their
St. Lawrence Waterway equipment and roadbeds and to make enough to cover the ordinary operating expenses. If revenue is taken from the railroads, how will it be made up? No country, and particularly Canada, can get along without railroads. We can get along without our trucks, our aeroplanes and our ships but Canada today and in the future must have railroads. Anything that interferes with the development and future maintenance of our railroads interferes with the development of Canada.
The ports on the great lakes and the seaway will be in use for only seven months in the year; for five months of the year they will be idle. I saw a statement the other day that the thousands of men who might be employed in these ports during the seven months in the year will be without employment for the remainder of the year and be more or less on unemployment insurance and be a burden upon the people of Canada to that extent. If the railroads lose revenue through the building of this seaway, that loss will have to be made up by subsidy or in some other way by the people of Canada. If men are thrown into unemployment for certain months of the year the money to maintain them will have to be provided also by the people of Canada. I wonder if our situation financially is going to be improved through cheaper water rates.
The next point was that this would provide cheaper power for Ontario and possibly Quebec. We in the maritime provinces are sometimes envious of the central provinces because of their great power developments. A moment ago the hon. member for Fort William said that power was needed in the central provinces for the development of industry. I would point out to the hon. member and to this house that there is no part of Canada so much in need of cheap power as the maritime provinces.
What will be the result of additional cheap power in the central provinces? We have heard a lot in the house about centralization and decentralization of industry. It is only logical to come to the conclusion that if there is more cheap power available in the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec there will be a greater concentration of industry there and less industry will be available for the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred to the development of power in the maritimes. If that can be linked up with the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, all to the good. That is something that should be done. We are not small-minded and we have no objection to the development of Ontario, Quebec or any
1644	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway other part of Canada, but we want our own part developed also. That is all we ask for; that is all we want.
Another argument used by the minister the other day was that this would strengthen national defence. As far as defence is concerned, we are linked up with the United States. If the development of the St. Lawrence seaway is going to aid in the defence of Canada and the United States I should like to ask the minister why the Senate of the United States turned down the proposition. I think they are and should be just as much interested in the defence of the North American continent as we are.
The minister said that ships using the St. Lawrence seaway would not be vulnerable to submarine attack in case of war. That may be true, but ships using the St. Lawrence seaway will not confine their operations to the seaway and the great lakes. Many of those ships will be leaving the St. Lawrence and will be subject to attack by submarine in the Atlantic ocean. As far as I am concerned, that argument does not carry any weight.
Decentralization of industry is being carried out today in the United States and many other countries. For instance, Russia has moved her great factories beyond the Urals or to different sections of that great country so that they will be less open to air attack. In Canada we have a great concentration of industry in cities like Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and other centres. Our industry is very vulnerable to attack. If our industry were dissipated throughout the country and more placed in the maritimes or on the prairies it would add to the protection of this country and make it much stronger.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred to the next point with which I wish to deal. I do not wish to repeat too much, but following him it is difficult not to do so because he has mentioned nearly everything. The minister dealt with the building of ships and said that the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway would permit the building of ships in the sheltered areas of the great lakes. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said, the great ports of Halifax, Saint John, and Pictou form the cradle of the development of the building of ships on this continent. I should like to ask the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch), the hon. members for Halifax and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) what they think of the proposition of the future ships of this country being built in the protected areas of the great lakes, thus taking employment away from the


people of Saint John, Pictou and Halifax. I do not believe that will be very much in the interests of the maritime provinces. In fact will be a decided loss.
To my mind one of the chief reasons why the St. Lawrence seaway is being developed is because of the Labrador ore. I think it is the nigger in the woodpile so far as the present haste is concerned. I believe it is one of the chief reasons why the St. Lawrence seaway is to be built now. We understand that the ore in Labrador and the northern part of Quebec is owned by United States interests. In developing the St. Lawrence seaway we are supplying transportation for the conveyance of this great asset to the mills of the United States. The raw material is to be taken out of Canada and processed in that country.
If we look at a map of Canada we will notice that the nearest and logical area for the development of this ore is the maritime provinces. As has been pointed out, it is necessary that coal and iron ore be in close proximity in order to produce steel. In Cape Breton there are mines which can supply any quantity of coal for the production of steel, and if it were not for the fact that the United States and central Canada are anxious to obtain the ore for their established mills anyone who was disinterested in the matter would look at the map and say that the great steel industry for the processing of this ore should be in Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces generally. We have an abundance of coal and an abundance of labour. There is no reason why there should not be greater development in that region than there is at the present time.
It is also a well known fact that other industries locate where the development of steel production takes place. We in the maritime provinces have felt that we are more or less of a depressed area. If we could secure the development of steel production and the establishment of other industries I believe our provinces would be in a position to take their place beside the other provinces of Canada. I should like to point out that in Australia they have more or less the same problem. Not very long ago I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor. The heading is, "Australia Begins to Work Remote Iron Ore Deposit". They have discovered tremendous iron ore deposits in the northern part of Australia at a place called Yampi Sound. The article reads:
Located on the north side of the Sound on Koolan and Cockatoo islands, this 100-million ton deposit will give new industrial stability to this vast thinly

populated region which formerly was dependent on the seasonal fluctuations of the cattle industry for its prosperity.
Australia has realized that the development of a steel industry in the area where iron ore has been found will bring about new industrial stability for that region. I am sure the development of the steel industry in the maritime provinces to a greater extent would give new industrial stability to that area of Canada. I should also like to point out that the same article states that India, where there is a colossal reserve of some 6 billion tons of iron ore, is developing her own steel from her own iron ore. It is not being shipped out to some other country. Besides having the raw product, India is also developing the production of steel and giving employment to her own people. The article compares India's reserves of ore with those of the United States and points out that India has 6 billion tons compared with 3-6 billion tons in the United States.
The thought occurred to me that inasmuch as the United States has 3-6 billion tons of iron ore in her own country it should not be necessary for Canada to ship her iron ore to a country which has such large deposits. Like the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I do not wish to appear narrow in this matter. We are interested in the general development of Canada, and we always have been. We have always paid our share in the development of the great railroads and canals and everything else which goes to build up this country. We are still interested in the development of other parts of Canada. I have listened with much interest to the proposal for the development of the South Saskatchewan river project for the purpose of providing more power for the people and to irrigate certain lands to make them fertile so that there will be greater productivity. We in the maritime provinces are 100 per cent in favour of that development. I believe that the people of Ontario, Quebec and western Canada are prepared to assist in the development of any part of Canada where it is necessary.
When the matter of equalization of freight rates across Canada was being considered in the special committee on railway legislation I was very much pleased to see that the other parts of Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, realized the position of the maritime provinces. Every other part of Canada sympathized with their position and gave practical assurance of their sympathy for our problems in the legislation which was brought before the house. I believe that the people of other sections of Canada would take the
St. Lawrence Waterway same attitude if some practical idea for development in the maritimes were put before them. The hon. member for Cape Breton South spoke this afternoon about the Chignecto canal and Passamaquoddy projects. I think they should be linked up with the St. Lawrence seaway, and I believe we would receive support from every section of Canada.
Some of the fault lies with our own people. I should like to see the governments of the four maritime provinces tell the federal government just what they want. Some will advocate the Passamaquoddy project and others the Chignecto. Others will say we should develop cheap power from coal. Someone else will advocate the Petitcodiac project. I should like to see the premiers of the governments of those provinces get together and decide definitely on what they want. I should like to see them come as a united body and present their needs to the federal government. With the sentiment there is throughout Canada, as expressed in the special committee on railway legislation and in other places, I believe that Canada would be willing to give them what they want and we could get something definite. This idea is along the line of the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South a moment ago.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that there is very much more I can usefully say. As I said a moment ago, we do not like to object to a development of this kind, but we do express the hope and wish that the development will not be at the expense of one section and for the benefit of another section of the country; it should be for the benefit of the whole of Canada. I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) a few days ago. I should like to read a portion of it which is found at page 1583 of Hansard for December 4:
We have spoken about the need for the decentralization of Industry in Canada. This is the time for us to plan the decentralization of great industries in every part of Canada. We have mills on the Atlantic seaboard today. As we plan for the use of iron ore, let us make sure that those mills now existing in eastern Canada are supplied with iron ore on a scale which will require much greater milling capacity than they have today. And let us recognize that while there are immense advantages in carrying iron ore to the established mills in the central part of Canada, there are equally great advantages in assuring steel supplies at seaports both on the Atlantic and the Pacific, so that we may be shipping steel in the form of steel to our friends and allies in other parts of the world.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I agree with that statement contained in the paragraph I have read. I feel we must be practical in this matter of the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. I realize that probably 90 per cent of the members of this house are in favour of that development, and that it will

St. Lawrence Waterway become an established fact. I do not think anything I or anyone else can say or do will stop it. We realize also that there will be a power development for the province of Ontario, which needs that development. We realize that the iron ore which is owned by the United States will, to a great extent, go to United States foundries. But I believe our government has it within its power to see that a fair share of that iron ore will be smelted and fabricated in the Dominion of Canada.
We realize all those things. We realize also that if we are to have a great country we cannot shin all our raw products such as iron ore or pulp wood out of the country. We have an example of that in my own province. Companies in the United States own large areas of timber land, from which they cut and ship out of the country about half a million cords of pulpwood a year. The people of New Brunswick do the manual labour, and someone else performs the other work which commands higher pay. Only the other day the minister said .the St. Lawrence seaway would be a great advantage for our maritime shipping. I noticed that last year, for instance, practically the only shipping on the St. Lawrence from our province was about
191,000	cords of pulpwood. Much of the freight for Newfoundland and parts of Quebec consisted of shipments of coal from ports on the great lakes. To my mind that sort of business is not of great advantage to our country.
I would close with this. I hope something will be done to provide cheaper power so that we may have more industry in the maritime provinces, and something will be done to see that our raw materials, such as this iron ore in Labrador and our pulpwood, are not shipped out of the country but are manufactured and developed here. If that is done then young people, not only from the maritime provinces but from other parts of Canada, will And employment in their own country, and be able to live here in peace and prosperity.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great honour to have the opportunity of taking part in this historic debate, which will be long remembered for the contribution it will make to the commerce and industry of the whole of Canada. I should like to commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for his masterful presentation when presenting this resolution to the house. I believe there was nothing lacking in any of the details of construction as given by him to the members of this house.

Canada has been blessed with the most important means of inland transportation in the world. From Father Point to the western end of lake Superior it extends 2,500 miles inland into the heart of the North American continent, nearly half way from Cape Breton to the Pacific coast. For sheer size the great lakes system is tremendously impressive. It consists of a water area of 95,000 square miles. Its total shore line on the inland lakes is longer than the combined shore line of Canada's Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Are we going to make the most of this great natural advantage that has been given to us? I say, Mr. Speaker, we cannot take advantage of these great natural resources until we have removed the bottleneck which exists between lake Erie and Montreal. The elimination of the bottleneck is what is proposed in the resolution introduced by the Minister of Transport.
It is not a new proposal that is being made to the house at this time. For over one hundred years Canadians have heard a great deal about the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. A celebrated citizen of my district of another day, the late Hon. William Hamilton Merritt, the founder of the Welland canal in 1824, envisaged a great waterway extending from our district up to Montreal and through this bottleneck. In September, 1895, a meeting was held with United States citizens in Cleveland, Ohio, to discuss the project which we are discussing today. We have heard a great deal of the matter since that time.
What does the scheme involve? It involves the building of a channel, 27 feet in depth, extending 2,000 miles into the heart of the North American continent. It has been suggested to me that possibly we have not gone far enough, that 27 feet is not deep enough to carry the type of ship we should like to have come up into the heart of our continent. It has been suggested that it should go deeper and the depth of the channel should be 35 feet.
With the great waterway we desire in Canada we have coupled the gigantic power development which will provide two or three power development sites. I often wonder whether the promoters of the St. Lawrence waterway proper have not been too ambitious and placed too much emphasis on the gargantuan proportions of the scheme, thus frightening some people in this dominion. The greatest obstacle to navigation, the rise of 326 feet between lake Ontario and lake Erie, has been overcome already through the building of the Welland ship canal, which was completed in 1930 at a cost of $133 million. We

are not getting the most out of this great engineering feat which passes through the constituency which I have the honour to represent. It is true that there is much work to be done in the area between Prescott and Montreal. How much will it cost to complete this work? The best estimate that has been given up to the present time is $900 million. In his address the other day the minister made the statement that Ontario and New York indicate that they will undertake to pay for the development of power up to the sum of $400 million. If Quebec joins in the scheme for the development of power at Lachine they will pay an additional $250 million. In this resolution the government asks for power to raise $300 million to complete the proposition. Is it too much to ask that, for the great advantages that will be derived by Canada, we should authorize the government of Canada to borrow $300 million for the completion of this scheme?
Many years ago our forefathers built transcontinental railways to open up the great west. In recent times we have built such projects as the Welland ship canal costing great sums of money. I believe that it would bolster the morale of the Canadian people and give them confidence in themselves if they were to undertake and complete this great project. When can it be finished? As to the development of power, I am told that it will take four working seasons from May until December in each year, and that additional power can be made available to the people of Ontario and Quebec in 1955. It will provide for the generation of 2,200,000 additional horsepower, half of which will benefit Canada, to the extent of 1,100,000 horsepower. We need that power in Ontario and Quebec.
From the standpoint of navigation I am told that it will take about two years longer than the estimated time for the development of power. That would mean that it would be six years before we would have completed the seaway. The navigation and power development factors, it seems to me, are both compelling arguments for the completion of this project. For some period of time we have brought great amounts of iron ore from the Mesabi range at the head of lake Superior, but as time has gone on this great deposit of high-grade ore has been depleted. We now find that we must depend to a great extent on the ore fields of Quebec and Labrador. I can visualize great ore-carrying ships bringing ore from those deposits down the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes to steel-producing mills situated in Canada, developed by Canadian capital on the great lakes and on the Welland ship canal. We already have great steel
St. Lawrence Waterway mills in Hamilton, Toronto and Sault Ste. Marie. If this project is completed many more will be established and located on the great lakes system.
Western Canada has a great deal to gain .vith regard to the transportation of grain, especially wheat. I have discussed the matter with members of this house who come from western Canada and they are of the opinion that this seaway will be of great benefit to the western grain grower. Grain will be loaded in ships at Port Arthur and Fort William and carried to overseas ports.
Mention has been made of the great shipbuilding industries that can be developed on the great lakes. I do not need to inform many hon. members of the fact that we have already commenced a great shipbuilding industry on the great lakes. Last spring I had the honour to attend, along with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the launching of the greatest steamship built on the great lakes. I refer to the S.S. Scott Misener, built by the Port Weller Drydock Company at the northern end of the Welland ship canal, which is within my riding. I know they are ready to go ahead with the building of more ships in their great yards. This work can be undertaken and completed in the comparative safety of the great lakes. I see other great industries expanding and developing along the shores of the great lakes and the Welland ship canal. From the standpoint of defence consideration, we need this great waterway not only for the development of power but for the fact that it will give protection to trade within the boundaries of our country.
Some residents of my own district have expressed considerable alarm lest the great lakes seaway will cause further erosion damage in the Niagara district. I am informed that the development of the St. Lawrence will not have the effect of raising the level of the lakes. I have been assured by competent engineers that the mean water level of the lakes will not be raised as a result of this development.
What then, Mr. Speaker, is the attitude of the United States? Every president from Harding to Truman has endorsed this plan. They have then sought the approval of congress, which has not seen fit to approve their decision. In 1941 Canada entered into an agreement with the United States, after years of study by engineers on both sides of the border. That agreement still has not been confirmed by the congress of the United States. During this debate the suggestion was made that the government of Canada had not made a strong enough or vigorous enough appeal to the United States of America. We do not need to remind the
1648	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway government of the United States of this great project because it has been before the minds of the governments of Canada and the United States for many years. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as will hon. members, that the public works committee of the House of Kepresentatives visited Canada less than a year ago. They were greeted by the Minister of Transport and other Canadian dignitaries, and were given the opportunity of going over the proposed undertaking, of perusing the plans and specifications that had been drawn. But when they returned to their native country, by a slight majority they voted against the scheme.
Then the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made every effort in his visit with President Truman to see that this great scheme was carried to completion. I therefore believe that we should not be accused of not taking a vigorous attitude in regard to the development of this plan. In an international situation of this kind I think the government might have been criticized had they been too aggressive and too forceful with our neighbours to the south. It is my earnest hope, Mr. Speaker, that congress will still see fit to ratify this plan. If they do not, then we must proceed at once. Our people expect us to give leadership in this great project. They expect us to go ahead with this great development of Canada as a whole.
What about the matter of collection of tolls? If Canada does go ahead with this great project on her own, I submit that we are entitled to charge tolls on other than domestic shipping passing through the St. Lawrence seaway. We have already expended large sums of money on the development of the Welland ship canal and in dredging the watercourse from Montreal down to tidewater. It is only reasonable that we should charge tolls in order that we might collect the original investment and the interest that would be payable on an investment of these proportions.
As a citizen of Canada I am proud to support this resolution. I do so because it affects not only the district from which I come, but will be beneficial to all parts of Canada. As a citizen of the Niagara district I know how much it will benefit the area in which I live. We are in close proximity to power at the present time. We know what power will do for the expansion of industry, and * can see many new establishments bringing employment to our people and a higher measure of prosperity in our district. The St. Lawrence seaway, in peacetime, would strengthen prosperity in Canada. In time of stress or danger it would strengthen our defences to a common foe.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is concerned with the setting up of a corporation for the purpose of providing a deep waterway between. Montreal and lake Erie, and to provide an authority with the right to construct, maintain and raise money for the payment of that construction. The minister himself indicated how important he felt this project was in the progress of Canada. I agree with him that, this is probably one of the most important measures that has come before this house in so far as its effect upon the general economy of the country is concerned.
The project can be a blessing to Canada. It-is a mark of progress. When we realize that, it is now just about a hundred years since we opened up that seaway for traffic of low-draft vessels, and built our earlier canals; when we consider it is now just about twenty years since we signed our first treaty with the United States for the development of this project, which treaty was rejected by the United States Senate; when we consider that it is now twenty years since we spent what I am told would now be the equivalent of close to $500 million on the construction of the new Welland canal and the new locks, it seems a very appropriate time to move forward, to create this 2,000 miles of unobstructed waterway from the head of the great lakes to the Atlantic.
As has been pointed out, the project is twofold. It involves the development of power for the use of the province of Ontario, as well as the seaway. There can be no question regarding the necessity of developing that power. We are told that there are
1,100,000	unharnessed wild horses not being utilized by the province of Ontario, whose energy is available for the use of industry. One engineer has estimated that the power going to waste in the international section of the St. Lawrence is equivalent to the energy that could be created by 28 million men. It is certainly opportune that we develop that power. Those of us who recall the difficult straits through which we passed in Ontario during the latter years of the war and shortly after, those of us who realize the extent to which industry was handicapped by the shortage of electric power in this province, can visualize quite fully the need for the development of the .available power in the international section of the St. Lawrence.
It is quite apparent that the power project could be developed without the seaway. As a matter of fact I understand that the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission was very seriously considering trying to get an agreement between the government of Canada, the

state of New York and Washington that would enable them, in conjunction with the appropriate authorities in the state of New York, to develop that power without a seaway, since it seemed obvious that there was not much likelihood of getting a very speedy agreement between the two countries regarding the development of the seaway itself.
It does seem sensible that when we are developing that power project we should at the same time make provision for the development of the seaway. As far as I can gather, it is much more economical to develop them both together. The waterway itself will have an enormous effect upon the economic life of Canada, an effect that itself can be for the good, or one that may not become an unmixed blessing. Whether or not it becomes an unmixed blessing will depend, I think to a large extent, upon the policy which is followed by the government in conjunction with the building and maintenance of this great waterway.
Certainly I shall favour the resolution. To me it is unthinkable that at this day and age Canada, with a prospective 2,000 miles of unobstructed waterway from the heart of the continent to the Atlantic, should continue to permit that waterway to be obstructed for a distance of approximately 100 miles. Ships take on and bring down through the great lakes half a million bushels of grain. Some of those ships can carry 15,000 tons of cargo, all of which has to be transshipped into smaller boats which have to climb up and down twenty-one locks. Then at the other end we have available facilities for ocean liners to reach the port of Montreal. It does seem in line with progress that we should connect those two sections of our waterways system, and that we should provide through the hundred-mile international section a waterway that will permit vessels to pass from the head of the lakes to the coast.
The next point is as to whether Canada is justified in proceeding alone, without the co-operation of the United States, if that becomes necessary. If we fail to obtain that co-operation, then I am all in favour of proceeding with this project. Indeed, I am not sure but that in the long run it would be better for Canada if we were to proceed with the development alone. It can be built entirely within Canadian territory, and after waiting twenty years I think we should not wait longer for the co-operation of the United States. This becomes of greater significance when we are given to understand that it will be self-sustaining.
I believe we should keep in mind that in connection with this waterway the United States is in a different position from Canada.
St. Lawrence Waterway We have been told this afternoon there are sections of our country that question the final outcome of this development. In the United States there are more sectional interests, great financial and industrial interests, that have opposed and continue to oppose the development. On the other hand the United States is no longer a frontier country, and there is not the same national need for this type of project. Our neighbouring country is well settled and is crisscrossed with numerous means of transportation: it does not depend as we do upon the export of raw materials and natural products. There are many reasons why the United States may be less interested in the carrying out of this development. For these reasons I would certainly support the government's move to proceed with the building of the waterway, with or without the co-operation of the United States.
For a few moments I should like to refer to the authority to be set up for the construction and maintenance of the project. There is no doubt that it will bring about a marked change in the economy of Canada, and will have a direct effect upon east-west transportation in this country and upon transportation generally. I suggest, as did the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), that when we embark upon work of this kind, where we are spending so much money on something that will affect all parts of Canada, the authority established should have the financial means to study how the development will affect our Canadian economy, and should have authority to undertake the wide range of activities that will be necessary if Canadians are to derive the full social benefits of the undertaking. If the St. Lawrence waterway development is left for the exploitation of private interests, the people of Canada may well stand to lose many of the social benefits that would naturally accrue. Then, the authority should take measures to avert any harm or anything detrimental that may flow from the development and affect any region in our country. We have heard this afternoon how it might have a detrimental effect upon the economy of the maritime provinces. The authority should be such that it can consider those factors, and should be permitted to take whatever steps are necessary to offset them.
Transportation is one aspect of our economic life which will be affected by the opening of the canal. The whole east-west transportation system in Canada will be affected. The toll fixed will have to be tied in with road and rail freight rates. Our transportation system was not built to tie in with a great waterways scheme such as is now visualized. In my
1650	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway opinion the authority to be established to construct and maintain this project should be in the nature of the Tennessee valley authority. It might very well be called the Canadian great lakes-St. Lawrence authority. One matter that should receive consideration is the effect this project will have upon the transportation systems of Canada.
The minister referred to shipbuilding, but there is more than that involved. There is involved the whole question of the use of ships, what types of ship will be used on this great waterway and so on. The minister indicated that the boats plying the seaway would not eventually cross the ocean, that their cargoes would have to be transshipped at Montreal or some point on the Atlantic. Would it not be possible for a research project to develop a type of vessel which could be used economically on the great lakes and at the same time be sturdy enough to stand the Atlantic ocean in order that goods from the head of the lakes could be carried to various pants of the world without having to be transshipped on the coast?
Certain it is that the huge carton-like ships that now ply the great lakes and which carry, as I said, up to 15,000 tons of iron ore or coal could not venture out upon the ocean. It is also pretty well established that the majority of ocean-going vessels would not be able to come up into the great lakes even after a 27-foot canal is provided. I have here a report by the Brookings institution on this subject. This report indicates that a 27-foot waterway would be of little use to combination passenger and cargo vessels; that 85 per cent of the passenger-cargo vessels now plying the Atlantic would not be able to use such a waterway. These vessels represent 95 per cent of the aggregate tonnage. The report states that the proposed 27-foot channel could not be navigated by 85 per cent of the faster cargo ships, that now reach a speed of 12 knots or over and represent about 65 per cent of the total tonnage.
It must be realized that the day of the slow vessel is past and that speedier and larger vessels now form a much greater percentage of the total tonnage in use than when this report was prepared. A 27-foot channel would exclude 87 per cent of the tonnage that operates under regular schedules out of Montreal and Quebec, and it could not be navigated by 60 per cent of the aggregate grain tramp tonnage engaged in overseas trade. This channel could not be navigated by 81 per cent of the cargo vessels, nor by any of the tankers now engaged in international trade.
It is quite obvious that we cannot expect a large percentage of the vessels now cruising


the ocean to enter this waterway even with a 27-foot channel established to the head of the lakes. It is also apparent that ships now using the upper lakes and the sheltered waters of the St. Lawrence will not be able to cruise the ocean. A question worthy of consideration is whether there could not be developed a type of ship which could navigate that 2,000 miles and then carry on to world ports without its cargo having to be transferred. I think this would involve a research problem which an authority such as this might well undertake.
Then there is the question of shipbuilding and the establishment of outfitting docks and yards. This will depend upon the government's policy regarding centralization or decentralization of industry and population. This waterway is bound to have a great effect upon the location of population and industry in Canada. Great changes in the location of industry and population may well follow the opening of this waterway. Whether or not we are to continue to enlarge a few centres now equipped with docks or whether some of the smaller towns along that waterway which at one time were important are to be revived and dockage provided will depend entirely upon the policy of the government with regard to the centralization or decentralization of industry and population.
Many new towns may be developed along that waterway and many ports whose past glories have faded may be revived. Here is an opportunity to decentralize industry instead of bringing more to the larger industrial centres of Canada. This is a question which I think should receive the consideration of some such authority.
It is because these and many other problems are bound to arise from the development of this waterway that I suggest the authority to be set up should have its scope and responsibilities enlarged. A question raised this afternoon had to do with the extent to which the maritimes might suffer. Certainly it should be the business of this authority to plan the economic development which will follow upon the construction of the waterway. As hon. members have pointed out, part of that planning should be toward the establishment of new industries based upon the natural resources already available in the maritimes and other parts of Canada. There is also the question of conservation. In certain parts of Ontario the shore line is being washed away year by year. The building of the seaway with the consequent creation of large reservoirs of water will destroy much scenic beauty and may very well increase the problems we now have in connection with the conservation of the shore

line. I certainly think an authority such as this should assume some responsibility. It should be given the right to co-operate with the provinces in the preservation of land along the route, and particularly in the creation of recreational facilities. That is a very large field there.
I am supporting the resolution and the project both with respect to power and the waterway, but I am suggesting that consideration should be given to the setting up of an authority with much wider power than is visualized in the resolution.; and I have tried to indicate a few of the problems with which such an authority would have to deal.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I will not delay the house long, but I think I should say a few words at this stage of our consideration of this extremely important subject. It is quite obvious, I think, that most of the members of the house who represent constituencies in the maritime provinces are approaching this very important matter with a real effort to avoid taking a negative attitude. I can assure you, sir, from my knowledge of the feelings of the members from the maritime provinces who sit on this side of the, house we do not approach this problem with a negative attitude at all. We regard, as I think most Canadians do, the proposal for the St. Lawrence deep waterway and power project as a most important development. I am sure hon. members and the government, however, will recognize our responsibility to consider every implication of this tremendous undertaking, to express, not only now but in the future stages of this legislation and also during the years in which the whole project will be developed, the interests of the maritime provinces, and to take every step that we feel is required to ensure that the vital interests of the part of the country we have the honour to represent are fully considered and protected.
I do not propose to go into any great detail on this subject at this time. A number of speakers preceding me in this debate have dealt at some length wth the aspects of this proposal which they, or groups in the mari-times from whom they have received representations, regard as threats to the essential economy of that part of the country. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), who preceded me, spoke at some length at the end of his address on the nature of the authority which he considered should be set up to carry out this important development. It is certainly my view that nothing should be done in the setting up of the authority which would in any way shift the
St. Lawrence Waterway responsibility of parliament and the government to oversee the effects and implications of the carrying out of this policy in order to ensure that it does not do direct damage to the maritimes, the west or any other part of Canada. That responsibility should remain in this parliament where the elected representatives of any part of the country that may be adversely affected can raise their voices to explain the difficulties and use their influence to ensure that policies are adopted which will prevent any damage of that kind. I hope that the hon. member had no thought of that kind in his mind, but in view of his expression of opinion I wanted to place myself on record as feeling that this important responsibility should remain in the hands of the people's elected representatives and not in the hands of any authority which might be set up to construct or carry forward this project.
I think all members of the house should be grateful to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for the masterly way in which he opened this debate. His exposition of the policy underlying the resolution was not only a treat to listen to but I think gives us a very sound basis upon which to proceed with this discussion and the consideration of the resolution itself. He laid some stress on the importance which he attached to the project, and of course that importance should not be underestimated. He spoke of the project from the point of view of defence. I think that is a matter we should consider very carefully indeed. Any work of this magnitude which is urgently needed for the defence of the country must demand our consideration. The actual construction and existence of the waterway would of course involve the creation of a number of vital points that in themselves would require protection, and in that sense they create a problem of defence. But given the ability to provide local protection for the important works and structures which will form the physical part of this development, I think we must recognize that its existence will be an important tool of defence if this country is ever again faced with the kind of emergency that we passed through between 1939 and 1945.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should never forget the continuing importance to the country of this development from the point of view of defence. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in this house, and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) in a speech at Washington, referred, as part of its importance from the aspect of defence, to the expansion of shipbuilding facilities in the protected waters of the great lakes. I believe

St. Lawrence Waterway that is of importance, but I should like to point out that adequate shipbuilding and ship repair facilities will continue to be of the utmost importance on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in spite of the provision of new facilities in the central provinces. The facilities at Halifax, Saint John and in the St. Lawrence river are of fundamental importance. While we would never take the position that facilities should not be expanded as they are required in other parts of Canada, we must insist that the facilities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts be maintained because of their national value. As the needs require, they should be expanded and developed.
Over the last two years a great deal has been said in this house concerning the decentralization of industry. One thing about the St. Lawrence seaway and power project that worries the maritime provinces is that it appears to have a strong centralizing influence. I believe the government recognizes the importance of carrying out, in so far as it is possible, an orderly and economic policy of decentralizing the industry of this country. I should like to suggest that in the important developments which will follow the opening of the seaway, and the development of power facilities which will be a companion to that project, the important objective of the decentralization of industry be not forgotten. Steps should be taken to see that this policy is followed in every field in which it can be followed.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) spoke with feeling earlier in this debate about the use in this country of our natural resources, and the importance of seeing that great resources such as the iron ore bodies in Labrador and Quebec are used and processed in this country. That is a sentiment with which we all can agree. He asked why it was that according to present indications this iron ore will go to the United States to supply the needs of the steel mills in the central part of that country. The. hon. member suggested that there was some direct connection between the development of the seaway project and the use of those iron ore deposits for that purpose. I believe he is probably correct when he says there is some direct connection between those two propositions. After all, when transportation facilities exist they create traffic, and the need for the movement of traffic creates transportation facilities. However, I should like to point out that in considering the development of the tremendous volume of iron ore situated in the central part of Quebec and Labrador, we must remember that it would be impossible to conceive the amount of capital that might
[Mr. Dickey 1
be required to make those resources available to an industry which could not possibly take the volume of the product which would be required to make that development economic.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many years it would be before there would be any possibility of undertaking the tremendous job of making these iron ore resources available to a purely Canadian steel industry. I should think it would be a matter of generations. However, under present conditions the existence of a demand in the United States for large yearly supplies of iron ore will make it possible to develop from these resources, in the first year of operation, something like 10 million tons of ore. I foresee that once that development has been undertaken, and once that ore is flowing down the railroad to Seven Islands and to tidewater, it will create a situation which should provide companies and individuals in the maritime provinces with an opportunity to show their initiative in the employment of supplies of iron ore of a very acceptable nature for the development of our basic steel industry.
Representing the city of Halifax, as I do, I should at least make some reference to the effect which this great project may have on ocean-borne trade. In this connection the Minister of Transport said, as recorded on page 1577 of Hansard for December 4, 1951:
In this connection it may be of interest to note that ocean-going vessels are not expected to play a major role on the seaway. They may very well enter in some numbers, to be sure. But in the circumstances I have outlined it would appear that an ocean vessel would not enter unless it had an inbound cargo as well as an outbound offering. No doubt there will be those that would have this advantage, but otherwise most of them will find it more attractive to pick up their cargoes at Montreal or some other transfer point.
I think this shows that, so far as can be foreseen at the present time, the indications are that the construction and the use of this seaway will not have a significant effect upon the present pattern of the handling of Canada's export trade. In Halifax we have the disability of a seasonal port business. But I think the normal expectation would be that the pattern of this business will not be fundamentally changed by the existence of the seaway, and that we can look forward to some substantial increase in the winter traffic through Canadian Atlantic ports by reason of the expected increase in the general export business of this country which will be assisted and influenced by the existence of the seaway.
The extremely important element of cheap power has also been mentioned in this debate. The development of hydroelectric power has

been of tremendous advantage to the provinces of this country which are so magnificently endowed with those resources. However, they are resources much in the nature of coal fields, oil wells or other resources of that kind. We in the maritime provinces certainly are not well endowed in the field of hydroelectric power. We shall have to turn more and more to the development of power by other means which are as cheap as we may be able to devise. However, we have never taken the attitude that, just because we do not possess these great natural advantages, those fortunate enough to possess them should not develop the resources that lie within their borders. I think that same argument applies to the development of the tremendous sources of power which, as has already been pointed out, are now running to waste to no advantage to anybody. However, I think the principle must be maintained, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of the development of this power must be borne by the people who will use it, and who will reap the advantage from it.
As to the cost of this development, I should like to point out that both as to the power development and the seaway, the proposal is for a self-liquidating project which will not be a burden upon the general revenues of this country and which will not be paid for by the taxpayers generally. The existence in this country of a magnificent system of inland waterways which have been paid for and maintained out of the general revenues of the country has for many years been a disability to the maritime provinces, which were not in a position to get any direct benefit from the existence and the maintenance of works of this kind. If the proposal for the seaway were to be of that nature, we would have to oppose that feature most firmly indeed. That, however, is not part of this proposal; and it should be remembered by all that this undertaking will not be a charge upon the ordinary revenues of Canada.
That is all I propose to say on this matter at this time, Mr. Speaker. I propose to support this motion on the basis of the few remarks I have made. I assure you that we will follow with the greatest interest the development of this matter both with the idea of forwarding the development of Canada in every way which may be proper and at the same time protecting the essential interests of the maritime provinces.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the pattern of this debate is becoming painfully familiar to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and to him must be somewhat reminiscent of the debate upon the railway bills, in which he heard much talk about the plight of the maritimes. Even
St. Lawrence Waterway the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) also made an address at that time along somewhat the same pattern as the one he has just made. All I can say to the Minister of Transport is that if he listens this time to the representations we make as carefully as he did during that former debate, and if he acts with as much kindness and generosity towards us, we will make him an honorary member of the maritime provinces association.
It is difficult to speak on this proposal in a critical way. One is open to criticism for being an isolationist, a maritimer or a small Canadian. It is particularly difficult to speak in a critical way on this matter when obviously the views which one expresses may not be held by the great majority of the members of this house; and it is quite obvious that they are not. Nevertheless, coming as I do from the maritime provinces and with certain definite mental reservations, at any rate, I feel that I must express these views at this time.
There is one matter I should like to raise at the outset-and it was referred to by the hon. member for Halifax a moment ago- namely the question of the cost of this undertaking. Frankly I am far from satisfied with any information we have so far received with respect to the cost. If, as I understood the hon. member for Halifax to imply, this is not going to cost the treasury of Canada anything, then certainly I would ask the Minister of Transport to give that assurance when he closes this debate. We have heard talk about tolls, and it has been suggested that revenue would be derived therefrom. Frankly I doubt if the minister is in a position to give any assurance as to the quantum of money which will be derived from tolls or to suggest that those would provide for the liquidating of the enterprise as a whole. Obviously the hydro angle would be a self-liquidating enterprise, we will assume. But I have here clippings galore, with which I am not going to bore the house at the moment, from shipping associations and various groups such as that, all pointing out that it would be impossible to charge tolls which would make this a financially profitable venture, or even a liquidating or an operating one. Not at this stage, of course, during debate on the resolution but when we are in committee on the bill itself I would ask that the minister be specific as to what is anticipated with respect to tolls on traffic which will go through these canals, whether the tolls are going to be applied to all traffic or only to some. I have read the debate which took place before the United States congressional committee, and there it was

St. Lawrence Waterway stated that no tolls would be levied upon traffic which came through the other canals.
I do not know whether that statement is right or not, but there is a great deal of vagueness and uncertainty with respect to the matter. I must also say that it is not a matter with which the minister dealt clearly in that admirable speech he made the day before yesterday. The impression I gained from reading his speech was that he found so many things on which he should speak that he omitted to speak with respect to the costs of this undertaking. Not only is there the operating cost; there is the capital cost. We have a conglomeration of figures, of suggestions and estimates, but nothing specific whatsoever. We are told: if you combine hydro and navigation you get so much; if you have co-operation between the United States and Canada you get so much, and if you have this and that you get some other treatment. But nowhere have I seen a definite estimate. In the resolution we have the creation of an authority and the empowering of that authority to spend so much money. Is that all that is contemplated? How much more is it estimated that it will cost to build this enterprise? What is the situation if the United States remains out?
As I understand it, there were discussions during which it was suggested that if this were a joint enterprise the United States would contribute part of the amount which we have already expended on former capital works, certain parts of the Welland canal, and that has been included in these figures. That we know. But if the United States stays out what is the situation, Mr. Speaker? All I am suggesting is that at the appropriate stage this house will expect from the minister a very clearly defined statement of the financial position of this enterprise, as to its capital cost, as to the operating cost and as to where the money is to be derived from to operate it. What will be the tolls imposed on what traffic, and what proportion of the operating expenses will be met by those tolls? That is one general matter on which we will look forward to hearing the minister at a later date.
There is another general observation that I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, one which is perhaps not too popular here. I say it with deference, and I say it sincerely. I must say that the minister did not stress it too much the day before yesterday. Personally I am rather weary of hearing this justified as a defence measure. Obviously we intend to get more steel production some day, and as steel is essential to defence then to that extent I suppose it may be termed a defence measure. Well, I have before me a copy of
[Mr. Nowlan.l
the Financial Post of August of this year, which contains a leading article written by Mr. Ken Wilson, an authority whom I think most people would accept. I notice in it he says it will take eight years at least before this seaway can be brought into operation, and it will take six years before the hydro development can be completed. Now, Mr. Speaker, if our war effort is harnessed to such a slow, leisurely pace as that then I think the suggestion made in this country is most unfortunate. We heard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) speaking to the nation over the radio the other night. We heard the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), speaking in this house within the last forty-eight hours, emphasizing the need of more men and the fact that this country was facing an emergency with which it had to deal. How do you combine that statement with this other one that it is essential to our war effort? Yet, it is something that does not materialize in one phase until six years from now and in another one until eight years from now. I think frankly it is part of the propaganda which is being used to sell this enterprise to this country. It makes a very plausible argument, but I do suggest that it is not in keeping with the realities of the situation.
I am not going to enter into a discussion at this time as to the relative defence qualifications of this canal with respect to the easy shipment by water to the Atlantic coast; but it has been suggested that by inland waterways you have absolute protection and by other shipment you face great danger. There is a real question about that. Why, Mr. Speaker, are we apparently erecting a network of radar stations in this nation? Why do we need large sums of money in the estimates for civilian defence? We are not anticipating attacks by submarine in the city of Ottawa and in the city of Winnipeg; we are anticipating attacks from the air. Apparently the suggestion is that planes may come over and pinpoint a refinery at Sudbury or an oil well at Leduc, yet they may miss completely the vast network of waterways which is contemplated by this resolution. I do not think it is a reasonable proposition. That could be justified only if the same fog rises from these waters as sometimes has been created by the propaganda which is released.
There is another general observation which I should like to make because I come from the east, as some others do. I think our position is relatively analogous to that of the eastern seaboard of the United States. Some will say: You are a little Canadian. There are Americans in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States who come from the Atlantic seaboard. As I said, I have read the debates which have taken

place in the committees there, and as I recall it every member of either party representing the Atlantic seaboard in these congressional committees was opposed to a similar resolution with which they were dealing at that time. They have taken that attitude not because they are little Americans, but because they thought it was prejudicial to the interests of the Atlantic seaboard of the United States. If they were justified in that stand then I suggest that possibly'there is some justification for the same position that we take here.
It is true that the opposition has diminished in this country; it is true that fewer voices are being raised. There is no questioning that whatever. I sometimes wonder whether that is owing to the vast influence of government entering into all sorts of organizations, industries and even municipal affairs, where possibly criticisms are not voiced which would have been voiced heretofore. At any rate you do have that opposition there, and it is one that I think we should recognize.
What may be the results of this action? One does not want to be positive in this debate, as I think the minister pointed out in his own address. This is a matter dealing with the future, and far be it from me to make specific declarations of gloom, disaster or abundant promises arising from it. But I think there are certain consequences one can suggest which would inevitably follow; and in this I follow very largely the thoughts which have been expressed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I do not think there is any question in the world, Mr. Speaker, but that this will adversely affect the coal industry of Cape Breton. There can be no question about that because at the moment coal from Cape Breton moves by water up the St. Lawrence river to Quebec and through an area that may be termed the Quebec region. United States coal, operating back and forth across the great lakes, cannot come down the St. Lawrence without having to be reloaded into those small barges, and the expense is such that it is not done. Once you have your seaway established I suggest that United States coal, coming out of the great lakes, will come down the St. Lawrence river to the city of Quebec, and to those areas which are now being serviced by Nova Scotian coal, and the result must be unfortunate to the Nova Scotia coal mining industry. If that follows it will also be unfortunate for the agricultural industry of the maritimes and of Nova Scotia, because to some considerable extent we are dependent upon the markets of the industrial area of Cape Breton with respect to many agricultural products in Nova Scotia.
I suggest also with great deference to the Minister of Transport, who is an authority
, St. Lawrence Waterway on this matter and with whom I would not want to quarrel or argue, that there must be some adverse effects for the railways as well. The minister said there would not be. He said:	You are going to develop a
great deal of industry and an increase in production, and that will result in greater traffic to the railways. It is a plausible argument, Mr. Speaker, and one which I would not completely deny. But I would ask the minister:	Where is your concentrated area
of population? It is in this area of the great lakes and the St. Lawrence basin, is it not? What will happen? You will get the result of this increased production moved by water to various centres along that great waterway of which he spoke. Then what happens? It will be distributed from there by truck on both sides of the river and both sides of the lake, to all the adjacent areas. I suggest that the railways will get but very little of this increased traffic in the concentrated areas of population of Canada. They will, of course, have to carry freight to the outlying portions of the west and the maritime provinces; and what will happen? The freight rate will have to be increased in order that they may do so. The minister himself said, with a degree of optimism which I would like to emulate, that we would be shipping goods by water from the maritimes to the head of the lakes. I think it is possible that casual shipments will be made. But, as the minister himself pointed out, shipment by water is not a one-way route. Ships are not going to load and come back empty. We will have those ships operating only'when they are carrying a load one way and bringing a return load the other way. I suggest there will be very few of those shipments made from maritime ports to the head of the lakes. What goods are moved will be at the expense of the railways. After all, one does not have to be very old to remember that ten or fifteen years ago there was a great problem confronting this nation. It was not the problem of defence or the problem of war; it was the problem of transportation. The Canadian Pacific Railway was facing financial troubles and had to come to the government, to parliament, for assistance. The Canadian National Railways were looked upon as a conglomerate lot, draining the public treasury of money. Then there was enforced co-operation; and we dealt with one of those bills the other day. It was popular to say that in our transportation facilities we were overbuilt for the next fifty or seventy-five years, and that we were facing disaster because of that condition.
Then came the war and ten years of an inflationary boom. Now we are proposing to build another great transportation system
1656	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway which will compete with the railways to a greater extent than ever before. I suggest to the house that, given a reduction of the present level of production, and given a return to former conditions-and one does not wish to describe them as normal-given a return to conditions which prevailed before the war, the transportation facilities of this country will be facing problems which will make it most difficult for them to carry on, and which will have been accentuated by this development.
Then there is another problem-and perhaps it is a psychological one-which confronts the maritimes. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) suggested it. I refer to the whole problem of the production of steel. In the maritimes, rightly or wrongly, we have had the feeling for many years that the steel industry, based as it was on iron ore from Labrador and limestone and coal in Cape Breton, could develop Cape Breton into the rough equivalent of a Canadian Pittsburgh. That is what we believed; that is what we still believe. Now what do we see? The main argument advanced for this waterway is that it will facilitate the shipment of iron ore to mills at the head of the lakes. One cannot accept that with too great a degree of equanimity. I can understand why the people of the maritime provinces resent the implication contained therein. I say there is a real danger for any government that progresses too far along that road and recognizes or admits that these iron ores should be exported to the United States over an indefinite future.
In that respect my leader yesterday afternoon made our position abundantly clear.
I wish to support what he said in that connection, because there is a belief which could be developed into an emotional feeling in this country-and emotional feelings are dangerous as applied to governments or to any other group-that we are being exploited to a certain extent. We recognize the necessity for the maintenance of contractual liabilities. We admit all that was said by the hon. member for Halifax about American capital coming in. But we do say that the government, through the Minister of Transport, should say in this debate that adequate steps will be taken to safeguard our iron ore, so that having fulfilled our contractual obligations to the United States quantities of steel will still be reserved for manufacture in Canada, and particularly in the maritime provinces.
Give us heavy industry and secondary industry will follow. That is our problem in the maritimes, and we believe this is an


opportunity to rectify it. That is the feeling against this whole proposition today. As I have said, to some extent it may be psychological; but the fact that it is psychological makes it none the less real. Certainly the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did not relieve that feeling when he suggested one day, apparently with great horror, that if this seaway were not built the steel industry would have to migrate to the Atlantic seaboard. Well, let me point out that in the United States three vast steel plants are now being erected on the Atlantic seaboard. What is good for the Americans in this respect would also be good for Canadians. Steel does not follow industry; industry follows steel. If we get a steel industry located in the maritime provinces we will have other industries following it. That is something I trust the minister and the government will bear in mind when they are dealing with this matter.
So far as our ports are concerned, to a large extent I agree with the hon. member for Halifax. I think the effect on those ports has been exaggerated. After all, Halifax and Saint John are winter ports. The other ports along the St. Lawence are used in the summer, as are the ports of Montreal and Toronto. But in the winter the ports on the Atlantic seaboard should be used as they have been in the past, and I doubt if there would be any adverse effect upon the maritime provinces in that respect.
Then, of course, there is the financial question. That may not be so important, but if the waterway is built we will have to bear part of the cost of the undertaking-unless the minister qualifies that to some extent in his speech later on. Why should we be asked to bear part of the cost of an undertaking which militates against our welfare? Why should we pay part of the cost of an undertaking which makes no contribution whatsoever to the solution of our problems, on a national basis? We are not small Canadians. We are not asking special concessions. But we do say-and in this I join with the hon. member for Cape Breton South and others- that this should be considered as part of a national plan. If it were considered on that basis we would be prepared to accept it, provided we are shown that in the national plan our special problems will receive consideration and fair treatment. But there is no suggestion of that whatsoever. The discussion thus far has been carried on on the basis of this development being something that will solve the hydroelectric power problem in Ontario, which I think Ontario might very well solve herself if she were free to-

do so. There has been mention that there will be great industrial development around the lakes. I do not believe I would be reflecting unduly upon that development if I were to suggest that the development and industrialization south of the border, on the United States side, will be far greater. They will benefit from this to an even greater extent than will the cities on the Canadian side. Yet we are paying for it. I saw a figure expressed by a United States engineer the other day, who said that 90 per cent of the benefits from this seaway development would enure to United States cities, United States industries and United States manufacturers. Yet Canada is paying the whole shot.
It has been suggested that we are winning in some sort of game in which we are bluffing the Americans by saying we will go ahead alone. I am sure we are proud of our developments, and we are proud the Prime Minister was able to go to Washington. The shock he gave them over there was a thrill for all Canadians. But, irrespective of that, the fact remains that United States industry which is buying raw material, manufacturing it and shipping it out is in a position to benefit far more from this development than are any Canadian industries.
Hon. members to my left, from the beginning, have said that this will assist in the shipment of wheat, and that it will help the wheat producers of the west. That is an argument I should like to accept. I know nothing about the production of wheat and less about its marketing, but my thought has been that the marketing of wheat is settled not by the farmer on the prairies but by the buyer somewhere else. In fact I have heard it suggested in the past that it was settled by the Winnipeg grain exchange, when that body has been criticized from time to time. It may be that there will be a saving of four cents per bushel, but who is going to profit from that? Will it be the farmer in the west?


An hon. Member:: Absolutely.


George Clyde Nowlan: I just hope the hon. member is right. How can they profit from it when the British government buys it and they agree to the price? Without entering into any argument on the technicalities of marketing wheat, I suggest that if there is a saving, and I think there may be, that saving will enure to the purchaser on the other side of the water and to the middleman who handles the wheat. I say to my hon. friends that it may happen that instead of profiting from it they will find the price of wheat lowered because the cost of transportation is lowered, and
St. Lawrence Waterway consequently they will have to sell at a lower price than they are receiving today. I hope that I am wrong, but I am suggesting that is a possibility which has been argued by many people who I think are greater authorities than anyone sitting in this house right now, outside of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I am giving it as my own impression of something one should consider.
There is another matter I should like to mention. I am glad to see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is here. I have heard him speak many times in the house, and properly so, about the decentralization of industry, how industry should be decentralized throughout this country and particularly in Saskatchewan. I suggest to him that when this goes through the opportunity for the decentralization of industry will be a thing of the past. Industry will become more and more centralized. He can bid good-bye to Churchill. Possibly that is where the Minister of Transport intends to get the steel to be used for this project, by tearing up the railroad now running to Churchill. Certainly that route will not be used, that route will be a thing of the past when this waterway goes through.


Mr. Ferrie:: Do not be so small.


George Clyde Nowlan: We will see what the future has to say about that. I am not being small; I am presenting an argument. I suggest that we in the maritimes are prepared to accept this if it is to be part of a national plan, an over-all plan whereby the needs of all Canada will be recognized and proper arrangements made therefor. We realize that this is a vast nation and that there are bound to be sectional differences, that there are bound to be unequal opportunities. I suggest that any government in the future, particularly one which assumes the responsibility for this gigantic project, must bring it forward as part of a national plan.
One thing said by the minister the other day rather shocked me. We are not shocked when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) says something because we are getting used to being shocked by the things he says and one does not expect to take them too seriously. But the Minister of Transport is a gentleman, he is an astute minister who usually holds the house in the hollow of his hand. The other afternoon he used as one of his arguments as to why this scheme should be accepted the fact that the shipbuilding industry will be moved to the head of the great lakes. Not satisfied with losing a steel industry, not satisfied with the fact that the decentralization of industry

St. Lawrence Waterway about which so much has been said is not being recognized at all, we are faced with the bland assumption that the shipbuilding industry is going to be transferred there.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misquote me or say by inference something that I did not say. At the time I was giving four reasons why the project was beneficial from the point of view of defence. One reason I gave was that it would create a shipbuilding and ship repair industry in the great lakes in wartime. That does not by any stretch of the imagination indicate that shipbuilding will be taken away either from the St. Lawrence yards or from the Halifax or Saint John yards.


George Clyde Nowlan: I realize that shipbuilding
is a private industry, and I realize that no government can transfer shipbuilding to the head of the lakes or elsewhere, but I do suggest that at least it was not tactful at this stage of the proceedings to raise the red flag of shipbuilding. Shades of Samuel Cunard, shades of the Nova Scotia flag and the great ships we have built and which have sailed the oceans of the world! Regardless of what may happen in wartime, I suggest that the minister is a little optimistic with regard to the shipbuilding industry. It may be that instead of having a shipbuilding industry at the head of the lakes it will be found that the ships will be built on the Clyde or the Elbe on the other side of the water and sent into the great lakes, and that any shipbuilding industry now at the head of the lakes might well vanish.
There are other projects which should be made part of a national plan, some of which were suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Reference has been made to the 'Quoddy project and the benefits that would accrue to Nova Scotia. I know nothing about engineering, so I cannot say whether power can be developed and transported such great distances. But anything that would be of advantage to the maritimes should be investigated in evolving a national plan. There is the Chignecto canal, and also another matter in my constituency, the development of power by the great rush of waters past cape Split. Hundreds of thousands of horsepower could be developed there.
Then there is one other thing to be considered. I do not want to appear to be living in a Buck Rogers age, but frankly I would hate to be a minister who would suggest the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in developing hydro power in this day and age when we have a statement by *our own atomic energy commission that the

development of power for civilian use by atomic means is a possibility within the next five years. There is one thing the government of Canada must do, regardless of the possible development of power at 'Quoddy or at cape Split; that is, investigate the possibilities of the development of atomic energy to be used in those places which would benefit most and thus be compensated for their lack of power.


Lionel Chevrier: May I suggest to the hon.
gentleman that the minister has not suggested that one red nickel be spent for power.


George Clyde Nowlan: I realize that this is a combined power and navigation project.


Mr. Knowles:: Red cent.


Lionel Chevrier: I reduce it accordingly.


George Clyde Nowlan: The two must run closely together, and I am quite sure considerably more than a cent or a nickel will have to be used in the effort. As I said, we are not opposing this matter at this stage, at any rate, but we do represent people whose feelings are definitely aroused. Unless some of our doubts are removed, unless the position can be made clear, we may have to fake action at a later stage of this resolution when the bill is before the house.
If this project can be developed and recognized as part of a national scheme, then I think it will be accepted by all parts of Canada. If it is simply to be a project which is to have only local merit, if it is to be something which will result in further centralization of industry and the increase rather than diminution of disadvantages faced by other pants of Canada, then it is not something that will meet with the approval of many people in outlying parts of this country.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, for many years I have heard the great St. Lawrence waterway project discussed. I was very intimate with the late O. E. Fleming of Windsor who for over thirty years sat on a commission investigating this matter. On many occasions I had the privilege of discussing with him the great advantages which he anticipated would result from the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. In later years he changed his opinion because of the terrific cost involved for the taxpayer of Canada. I have talked to many citizens in the beautiful cities of

Toronto, Windsor, Sarnia, and my home city of Collingwood. Some of them say: Well we are developing rapidly now but when the St. Lawrence waterway is put through industries will pop up like mushrooms; houses will do the same thing, and we will not know what to do with our wealth.
Level-headed men and women seem to forget that progress is only made by labour and great foresight. One national project of this kind, not coupled with terrific national planning, in my opinion is absolutely useless. Right now the people of Canada are confronted with a problem. For instance, bacon of comparable quality to ours can be purchased in stores in the United States for 45 to 47 cents a pound. You may ask what that has to do with the St. Lawrence waterway. I will tell you in a minute. The price in Canada is 75 to 80 cents a pound. Shortening is 3 pounds for 97 cents in the United States compared with 40 cents a pound in Canada. Coffee can be purchased in the United States for 78 to 85 cents per pound compared with $1 in Canada. Eggs are as low as 49 cents per dozen in the chain stores in the United States contrasted with the recent price of 80 cents in Canada. Such prices are almost necessary in Canada for those who participate in paying our taxes. The grocer, the butcher and the automobile producer must pay terrific taxes in Canada for this country to make progress. We have such a small population compared with the United States. People in Canada pay the federal government $400 in taxes on an automobile compared with a tax of $80 on a similar car in the United States.
I do not blame our grocers and butchers for charging the prices they need to get in order to meet the taxes that are now being imposed upon the public of Canada. Cigarettes are a good example. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in search of shekels with which to run the country, imposed taxes which have brought about the cigarette bootlegger. The cigarette bootlegger makes a profit even though he has to spend some time in jail because some people would rather buy cigarettes from him than pay the exorbitant taxes imposed on cigarettes in Canada.
The people of Ontario-and I come from Ontario-with whom I have talked about the St. Lawrence waterway are very enthusiastic. Last evening in the city of Toronto I was talking to a man of some substance. He is the manager of a large corporation, and I complimented him on the steady growth of his city. He said "Oh, wait till the St. Lawrence waterway is finished." The benefits to be derived from it seem to be on everybody's tongue. I said: "Just how will it benefit the city of Toronto?" He said, "Well, it will benefit Toronto; Montreal will be out". I said,
9469S-106
St. Lawrence Waterway "Do you realize Montreal is the end of the bottleneck, the end of the line so far as shipping is concerned today?" I pointed out that ships must stop there because they cannot proceed through the shallow waters of the St. Lawrence. That is why they stop at Montreal. It is the end of the line. "But do you mean to tell me the city of Toronto will be the end of the line if the St. Lawrence waterway is opened?" "Oh, no," I said. "Do you realize that the men on the grain boats loaded at Fort William are not going to stop off to shake hands with the mayor of Toronto? Toronto will never see them." I said, "You talk as if you can visualize the Queen Mary coming up to Toronto and dropping off passengers there." He said, "Well, maybe they will winter her here." Why would they winter in the city of Toronto? Why would foghorns hail the arrival of great passenger traffic in Toronto? What are they going to ship to Europe from Toronto? Let us be realistic about it. Sure, 'they are going to ship tons and tons of grain from Fort William if Europe will buy it, but the price will be a big factor as to whether or not they buy grain. Without the St. Lawrence waterway having anything to do with it, we know the taxpayers of Canada had to subsidize the western farmers to the tune of $65 million because the British people would not increase their price


John Horne Blackmore: That is not right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: According to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), they paid a proper price. He said they paid ample for it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) disagreed. The government got together-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did they?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -and rubber stamped the payment of $65 million. It was the buyer who set the price. It was the buyer who said: That is the price we will pay irrespective of the freight. The people of western Canada believe this great waterway is going to give them a much greater price for their wheat. That is not so at all. It will be the buyer who will set the price, and if Mr. Stalin lifts the iron curtain the British will be buying in Russia the same as they have in the past. Grain may accumulate in the western provinces. The time is not so far distant that we cannot remember when grain was stacked- all over the place in western Canada. Freight rates had nothing to do with that. There were no buyers in Europe. The barns, granaries and elevators were bulging.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) made the statement in the house that this project was not going to cost the taxpayers any money. I think he is the only man who has the secret of how to grow money on
1660	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway trees. There was never a dollar expended in Canada that was not a cost to the taxpayers.


John Horne Blackmore: That is not right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It does not come from the air. I know the Social Crediters have new ideas about money. So have I; but it is real money. This project is going to cost the taxpayers money. Therefore they are going to have to pay greater taxes, instead of having taxes reduced. The people of the United States do not want to contribute a dollar towards this deeper waterway. Why should they if the Canadian taxpayer will pay for it? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has not even given a partial guarantee of any positive advantages Canada will derive from the waterway. Undoubtedly the power end of this transaction is necessary, and will pay for itself in time.
The commodity which is shipped out of Canada in the largest quantity today is wheat. It is shipped to Europe as European buyers can afford to pay for it. Just what portion of the great lakes is going to benefit tremendously from this development? The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) talks about great steel plants at Fort William. If this project were being developed at the same time as other necessary projects in Canada, I could see where there would probably be great advantages. So far I am convinced it will only be of great advantage to the United States steel companies. I cannot see how we are going to develop our steel mills to any extent. In today's newspaper I noticed an advertisement of A. E. Ames and Company soliciting the purchase of Atlas steel first mortgage bonds and debentures. The total issue is for $8 million and is for the expansion of their plant. I understand that the Steel Company of Canada at Hamilton is now working on an expansion program totalling $50 million. Canadians buy a fair quantity of steel in Canada, and then go around with their hat in their hand asking the United States to please give them a little steel because it is badly needed.
If the dominion government would lend Atlas Steel $8 million, not at 4f per cent but at li per cent, it would create employment in Canada and help in the fabrication of Canadian raw material. Then we would not have to beg from the United States. I believe such a program would have the full support of all citizens. If the government had offered to lend the Steel Company of Canada $50 million at i of 1 per cent to encourage the expansion of plants for the fabrication of steel, so we would not be subservient to the United States as we have been for this most necessary product, they would have been


better advised than putting the cart before the horse and advocating this gigantic seaway plan. There are so many necessary projects in Canada which have not been completed, such as the irrigation scheme in Saskatchewan. Almost every Canadian must be sick at heart when he realizes that the population of that great province has dropped this year. How in the world can the other provinces in Canada progress when a province such as Saskatchewan actually has a drop in population? The maritime provinces have coal. There is iron ore in Quebec and Labrador, but it is all controlled by United States capital. Canadians will become again the drawers of water and tillers of the soil, while the profits from these products go to our lovely cousins to the south.
I am glad the people of the United States are investing their money in Canada, but I should like Canadian investors to be encouraged to put their money into these things so they will reap the profits and reinvest them in Canadian enterprise. I should like to see steel plants developed in the maritimes and in Quebec. I should like to see them developed in Fort William. I believe steel plants could be developed in Fort William today just as they were developed at Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie and Welland, Ontario. What is wrong with the people of Fort William? I ask the hon. member why these plants were not developed long ago. Is the mere fact that they have a deeper waterway going to cause a boom in Fort William? I can recall forty years ago when all the real estate men for hundreds of miles around were flocking into Fort William and Port Arthur. It was going to be another Chicago in ten years, but it is still not a Chicago. Many people bought property there at exorbitant prices, but today property values are far below those prices. If cities like Port Arthur and Fort William have a sane sensible growth they will not skyrocket just because a project like the St. Lawrence waterway has been completed. The taxpayer of Fort William will have to pay his share of that development. Just how much is it going to mean to Fort William and Port Arthur?
Ships are being built today in Fort William and Collingwood because those boats are too large to go up and down the present St. Lawrence waterway. A $4 million tanker is being launched at Collingwood today. I believe it would have been built in Italy, Germany or England if there had been a deeper St. Lawrence waterway. If this scheme goes through we may see grass growing again in the shipyards on the great lakes. I believe we shall see many of our inland sailors laid off and supplanted by cheaper

European sailors. I predict that with the completion of this seaway most of our grain will go out in foreign bottoms, manned by foreign sailors. A terrible blow will be dealt to the ports on the great lakes. I should like to ask the members of this house exactly what we know about the benefits that will be derived from this project. I feel that 90 per cent of the members are in favour of it. I am in favour of the hydro development being completed as quickly as possible. I am in favour of the St. Lawrence seaway if I can see great advantages to counterbalance the heavy expenditures. I believe there are other parts of Canada upon which money should be expended from which immediate and positive benefits would be derived. Unless we call upon the taxpayers of Canada to dole out almost unbelievable sums of money in order to induce immigrants to come to this country, to construct factories and work in the factories, then this canal is years ahead of its time.
Today we are bringing in immigrants at the rate of about 100,000 a year, about 50 per cent of whom are children; and our taxpayers have to pay for their education. There may be
35,000	immigrants spread across Canada to help fill the need for labour in this country. I believe this government should have given greater guidance with regard to the over-all picture in Canada, in the development of industries and power projects in all provinces. But the great hullabaloo reminds me of a government which is sending up balloons constantly. When the public gets sick of one balloon they throw up another. One such balloon was that there would be no conscription; then there was conscription. Then they said: We will throw up the balloon of the baby bonus. Now they have another balloon, in my opinion, and that is the great St. Lawrence waterway. It is a great vote-getter. I hope all those who are talking in favour of it are satisfied that this government is going to look after the other projects in all provinces, that need looking after so badly. You know full well, Mr. Speaker, that the development of power and irrigation in Saskatchewan has been on the hooks for years. Now another commission is debating as to whether or not it will ever go through.
I should like to have a yes or no answer on these things. I should like to know whether we have gone to our limit in doing what we can for our maritime provinces. I am an Ontario man, but I know it is not a healthy condition to see Ontario booming ahead and at the same time the other provinces, whose prosperity is so necessary for an over-all great Canada, slipping back. That sort of thing simply cannot go on. I am speaking in fairness to the entire dominion of Canada,
St. Lawrence Waterway from my viewpoint. I hope that this government have given every consideration to such necessary things as immigration, the development of all of our provinces and a fair share of expenditures to them all rather than a concentration on this St. Lawrence waterway.
I am positive that some people in Toronto will say: There is the member for Simcoe North and he is against the great waterway. I feel it better to be against it rather than to be like a friend of mine who talked to me in Toronto last night, and who can visualize the Queen Mary in Toronto harbour. He can visualize all the concentration of shipping that is going to Montreal being dumped into Toronto. That is a fallacy. Why not make Windsor the great point, or Sarnia? Why not construct a new port on this canal down at lake Erie?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not forget Collingwood.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Well, last but not least, Collingwood. Is this waterway going to affect our railroad system that we are constantly paying to keep going? Is the effect going to be such that there will be increased taxation to pay for the lack of freight on our railroads? I just wonder how many men in the House of Commons have given this matter a great deal of thought, outside of visualizing the continual stream of traffic up the St. Lawrence river, in to Toronto, through lake Erie, up the St. Clair river, in to Owen Sound, and every town booming on account of this seaway. I really think most of them have not given the matter thorough study, having regard to what we are not doing in other parts of Canada.
To me, this project is not worth anything running on its own. What freight are we actually going to ship to Europe outside of our wheat? Our manufactured products? The Europeans are down on their hands and knees now trying to ship us their manufactured products so they can buy our wheat. We all seem to think the St. Lawrence waterway is going to make all the manufacturing concerns of Ontario and Quebec boom, that they will load up these boats with goods, send them: down the river and over to buyers, who cannot afford to pay for our products. The next thing will be that you will find this government wanting to lend money that they know they will never get back. We are doing that with regard to our wheat today. They will say: Buy our electric trains made in Owen Sound and Collingwood. We will lend you the money to buy them with. We have the deep waterway. We must use it. We spent the public's money on it. Two hundred and fifty million dollars? Watch it when it is

St. Lawrence Waterway finished. I will go on record tonight as saying that it will cost closer to $400 million before it is finished in six, eight or ten years time. This country has only so much money to spend. The taxpayers can afford only so much.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are gouged now.


Clarence Gillis: They are going to be gouged some more.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Can they afford this expenditure? I am not trying to take some political stand on this subject. I am not trying to catch votes. I am trying to talk facts. Can the taxpayers of Canada, with a population of 14 million, afford this enterprise at the present time? Are there not many more essential things that we need?
I know western Canada. I know every part of it. I know this country from the border at the south to Hudson bay; I know it from Saint John to Vancouver. I have not said of Ontario that it is the greatest province in the world. I prefer to say that this could be the greatest country in the world. I prefer to say that our workers are getting top wages with United States labour. I prefer to say that a man can buy an automobile within reason in this country without being gouged $400 in taxes on his Ford car. I am speaking because I hope soon, owing to a greater population, taxes will be reduced due to the fact that we have a greater home market than we have today.
I would say: Go across the sparsely settled western provinces. I remember going across them with my father over fifty years ago, when he said to me: Son, when you are my age this country will have 50 million people. I have passed his age and he has passed to the great beyond, and we have 14 million people owing to nothing but lack of foresight on the part of the governments, both Conservative and Liberal, that we have had in power. We need in Canada today men like those who built the C.P.R. right across this country, who had vision and confidence, and who were willing to develop the gifts that God gave to Canadians in the way of great resources. This is not a gold mine in the St. Lawrence river. It is not an oil well. I believe all industries across this country should have been encouraged to develop themselves so they would all go along in harmony and this country would have developed into what it should be. I say that Canada's population today of 14 million people is an absolute disgrace to the planners of the past, particularly to the planners of the past 35 years. We have said that we do not want immigration here lest we be contaminated. My family have lived in this country for over 150 years; and when I cannot compete against a newcomer who cannot

even speak my language, the sooner I walk into the river until my hat floats, the better.
I have heard men who had good positions say: We do not want a melting pot here as in the United States. I heard one man say it today. I have heard another man in my own constituency say: We do not want these foreigners; they will take our jobs. I just looked at him in utter disgust. Just imagine a man who has been educated at the expense of the taxpayers of this country and who speaks the language prevalent in this country being afraid that a man who cannot even speak his language and who has half his education is going to take his job away. I have had men say: Well, these newcomers do not eat as well as we do. Let me say this. They ought to visit some of my foreign friends, where they do not get their food out of tin cans. They get it from the back garden, and it is succulent food at that. It is probably far more healthy than the stuff most of our Canadians are trying to eat. Just one excuse after another is offered. It is selfishness that holds back the growth of this country. It is time we members of this House of Commons spoke our minds and stopped this nonsense of Canada being talked of as a melting pot. Let us go ahead and encourage immigration. Let us bring artisans out here as well as farmers. Let us show them what we want them to do. Let us give them an opportunity of doing it.
Not many months ago a doctor from Rou-rnania arrived at our shores. His wife is a Viennese. There is one gentleman in the House of Commons who does not know what I am talking about. I have always advocated a loudspeaker system in this house so hon. gentlemen could hear the speeches. I am sure if that hon. member could hear what I am saying he would profit by it.
This doctor from Roumania to whom I referred, for the privilege of coming to Canada, the land of the free, had to wash dishes in a Gravenhurst sanatorium for one year. How can we expect our newcomers to tell their children what a great country we live in when they reflect back upon the sentence they had to serve on coming to the land of the free, namely washing dishes in a Gravenhurst sanatorium for one year. We are asking doctors to do that. That is the way we have been handling immigration. We should have a planned immigration scheme in this country. Bricklayers, carpenters and others should be coming here and being spread amongst all of the provinces of Canada to develop our country. Instead of doing that we are concentrating our thoughts on the St. Lawrence seaway. In my opinion the cart is being placed before the horse. I am not saying that it will not

be beneficial in years to come; but there are many items that are far more essential and on which the taxpayers' money could be spent at this time than the St. Lawrence waterway project.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to
make a few comments on this, Mr. Chairman. They are really inspired by the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings. I am going to vote for this resolution. I shall do it with certain questionings as to detail. It seems to me the leader of the opposition was right when he said that in a sense this is not a new plan, not a new design, not a new undertaking; it is merely to complete an existing undertaking. As I say, I propose to vote for it; but in saying that I should like to say also that I share some of the questions which have been raised as to whether this is going to be just as rosy all the way through as some people imagine. I could not help feeling this afternoon that the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings might have been warranted in raising certain questions as to whether this would immediately benefit the railways; whether it may be creating problems that none of us want to create. But I shall not take up the time of the committee on that. What I really want to do, speaking as an Ontario man, is say that I feel at the present time we are leaving our brethren from the maritimes in a position in which they should not be left.
We have listened to them this afternoon. We have heard the arguments they have made, and I do not think that we can regard them as trivial or unwarranted. Really all we have to say to them is: Come along. This is a big conception, a big project; it is going to be for the welfare of Canada, and you will be on the band wagon. You come along, and you will benefit like the rest of us. Well, the people in the maritimes have been hearing that for a long, long time, and I am not surprised that it sounds a little hollow. And although none of us intended it should be false, it may sound a little false to them. I do not mean that in the sense of being dishonest; I mean it is something which we may really intend, but which may never come true. I mean by that, it may never come true in any future near enough for them to be able to take much interest in it. There is no use talking to people who are going to live their lives in the next ten, twenty or thirty years and telling them that this will be a grand thing
St. Lawrence Waterway for their children or their grandchildren, and that they will benefit from it, because it is altogether likely that their children will have left the maritime provinces by that time.
It is not as if it were merely that they did not think this project would benefit them. They actually think it will do them harm, very substantial harm; and as one listens to them again, as I said a moment ago, it is awfully difficult to meet those arguments. The minister shakes his head. Perhaps he can meet them better than I can; but at any rate I am expressing my view for what it is worth. I find it very difficult to meet them. I will say this to the minister: No matter how persuasive he may be, I doubt very much whether even he will find arguments which are going to satisfy the people from the maritimes if things are left as they are at the moment. When I say "left as they are at the moment" what I mean is this. I submit the minister has done what has been done so often in the past. He is only holding out hopes to them that they will benefit. There is an exception to that. He pointed out that work would be provided in the maritimes by the iron ore production, but apart from that there was little enough hope. Indeed, as has been pointed out in the speeches which have been made, there was a great deal in his speech to alarm them and make them feel that actually not only would the seaway not help them but it would hurt them.
I want to go on from there to make this point. This afternoon the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings went a long way. I think he showed himself a true Canadian in his desire to find a common ground. He said in effect: "We want a common ground; we want to look at this in a broad sort of way. But there must be an over-all plan, not merely a plan which is going to come true in some vague far-off time which nobody can be sure of." In the past, of course, similar situations have existed; and I think in the past governments have been in difficulty because they did not have the means, unless they were going to abandon all their idea of government, to directly influence enterprises to establish here or there. They could do it to a small extent by taxation, but not to any very substantial extent.
My purpose in rising tonight, Mr. Chairman, is to point out that situation exists no longer; that the government now, if it wishes, has in its own hands the power to make definite statements as to what can be done, not this year, next year, sometime or never, but at once. My reason for saying that is what was explained to us this morning in the committee which is dealing with
1664	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway defence expenditures. I wish to read briefly from some of the information which was given there, which will show what I mean when I say that government at this time has it in its own hands, if it wishes to take definite steps toward the end. This is not a new thing; I know it has been mentioned to this government again and again. They have been asked to spread out industry. Let me come to the point. Briefly-


Mr. Benidickson:: Order. Has the committee made a report, Mr. Chairman?


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is not talking about the committee's proceedings; he is talking about a document.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member is referring to the proceedings before that committee, and if the committee has not yet reported to the house, it is not in order at this time to read from the proceedings.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I will just give it of my own knowledge, Mr. Chairman. I believe it to be a fact that the defence production committee has spent $100 million on construction in the past six months, and presumably will spend more than that in the months to come.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is really the department, not the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Department of Defence Production. The second point I wish to make is that a great deal of that expenditure is being made for the purpose of bringing into being new industries which are being developed on what is called the insurance plan. That is to say, if international affairs become worse we have to be in a position to quickly expand production. We must have plants developed for various purposes, which we can scarcely expect unassisted private enterprise to do. Therefore the government is stepping in. In certain cases it is providing buildings and in other cases it is providing tools. In various ways it is directly assisting the establishment of industries in various parts of this country to the tune, as I said, of $100 million in a six months period. And I suppose it is extremely likely that amount may accelerate.
Therefore I say we have to meet a situation which, so far as I am aware, has not existed in this country in the past. The government is able, if it wishes, to make definite commitments, definite assertions as to a plan which could be put into effect in the immediate future and which would do a great deal to allay the misgivings of our friends from the maritimes, which no one who has been in the house can doubt are very real. The minister thinks he can answer them, and he 

may answer them to his own satisfaction. But he will agree with me in this, I know, that it is not desirable that we should have a whole area of this country, an area inhabited by people whom we all respect as being among the very best, an area in which the people feel that fortune is against them and that they are not marching on with the progress of this country. They feel deep regret when they see their sons leaving their own provinces and coming to central Canada. I am sure no one regrets it more than the minister.
I come back to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings; that he wishes to take the broad view but points out the difficulties. The minister will remember that he said something like this: "If we could only have an over-all plan for all the people, it would be all right". The minister will agree that the over-all plan, except in so far as it affects the country west of Montreal, is rather nebulous. It embodies hopes which neither he nor I nor anybody else in this house thinks will satisfy the maritime members.
And so I say that, speaking as one from central Canada, I feel we have gone on long enough asking our friends from the maritimes to be content with just hopes for the future. Now the government has it in its power, with these tremendous expenditures it must make, to make a definite plan which would satisfy the maritimes and which, if announced now, might permit them * to vote for this measure.


Mr. Green:: Is the minister not making any reply to the comments of the hon. member for Greenwood or other hon. members who have taken part in this debate?


Lionel Chevrier: I would prefer, if I may, to reply not only to those comments but to the comments of all hon. members who have spoken thus far against the resolution. I would prefer to make those comments on the bill. I understood from the statement made yesterday by the leader of the opposition that he was prepared to consider both these resolutions at the same time. I also understood from him-perhaps I was mistaken; if I was, I shall take it back-that there might be a possibility of reaching the second reading stage of the bill with respect to power.
I believe the discussion on the first resolution has been fairly complete, and I would hope it might be possible to complete that discussion and get on to the resolution concerning power, and then to the bill. At that time I would be delighted to take up some time of the house, in fact a considerable portion of time, to make the necessary reply.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important measures to come before the Canadian House of Commons for decades. Questions have been raised today which merit a reply from the minister. I suggest this is not the proper time to take short-cuts, and that it would be in the interests of the country if the minister were to reply at this stage, as is the usual custom, rather than wait until we reach second reading. After all, at the resolution stage questions can be asked. I would urge that the minister deal with these matters now.


Lionel Chevrier: I am prepared to do so now.
I had hoped to do so later, but if the committee feels that I should speak now I am prepared to proceed.


William Joseph Browne: Are we
dealing with the two resolutions now?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are dealing with the resolution having to do with the deep waterway.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I feel that perhaps at the outset I should commend the leaders of the house for the attitude they have taken in the debate. There can be no doubt that the statement by the leader of the opposition strongly supports the resolution; and, I take it, both resolutions. I must say, however, that I am somewhat surprised at the attitude of some hon. members who have taken part in the debate, because the discussions have not followed the course one usually sees. I have yet to hear anyone rise in his place and say that he is diametrically opposed to the scheme. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that some members-two, if not three-have said, "We are all for this, if it is for the good of the country", and then have proceeded to make a forty-minute speech against it.
That is why I say we have witnessed a strange kind of debate. I would refer particularly to the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings, who took that particular attitude. His statement was that 90 per cent of the members in the house are for these resolutions, and that he would not put his knowledge against that of the others. Then he proceeded, with a list of things which I shall discuss later on, to give all the reasons why this development should not be carried out.
At least we must accept the fact that the hon. member for Cape Breton South started off by saying he was opposed to it, and then wound up by saying, Well, perhaps it was not too bad, after all.
St. Lawrence Waterway


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister does not want to make an incorrect statement. That is correct, and the record will prove it. I said I was going to document evidence that was unalterably opposed to it, and that is what I did. Then this afternoon, in the last ten minutes I made my own statement, and I said I was not unalterably opposed to it.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept the hon. member's statement and his correction of my statement. Then I take his position to be this, that when he made his initial remarks they were to the effect that those whom he represents in the house were against it; but then, toward the end of his remarks, he gave his personal opinion as being favourable to it, on 'he whole.


Clarence Gillis: No, that is too all-inclusive. I did not refer to "everybody" I represent in the house. I called witnesses through documentary evidence from the mineworkers, the steelworkers, the municipalities and the like.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I wish to go on with my statement.


Clarence Gillis: Well-


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment, now.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to sit here and let the minister put words in my mouth. As long as he keeps misinterpreting me, I will continue to interrupt.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me tell my hon. friend if that is the statement he makes, then I have no alternative but to accept it; and I do accept it. I shall deal with his arguments later on, and we will see how serious they are.
Then, in the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North, if anyone was listening to him, it was difficult to find out whether he was for or against.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am glad to hear the minister say that at least he was listening. I made mighty sure he was listening, too.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know whether he was for or against it, and I doubt if anyone else in the house knew whether he was for or against it, from what he said.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am against it because I do not believe this government have developed the things they should have developed. I am against this until those things are done. There is no indecision about that; I am definitely against it.


Lionel Chevrier: Have I the floor, Mr. Chairman? I believe I have, and I should like to proceed. I am dealing with the remarks of
1666	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway the hon. member for Simcoe North, and I say that no one who listened to him could make up his mind whether the hon. member was for or against it. I will quote his words, which I took down. He said, "I am for the power," and a little later on, "I am for the waterway provided I can see my way clear to support it."


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: What that means I do not know, and I am sure members of this house do not know. That is why I prefaced my remarks with the statement that I thought this to be a rather strange debate. Most hon. members got up and said this was a good thing provided it was beneficial to all parts of Canada, and then many hon. members proceeded, either in their own words or with documented evidence, to give arguments against it. I would like to deal with the arguments that were given against it, and I do this in answer to what the hon. member for Greenwood said. I do not pretend that I shall be able to answer all his arguments or that I shall be able to satisfy members from the maritimes, but I shall attempt to answer the arguments as I understand them and I will do it with all the sincerity of purpose of which I am capable.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South began his remarks the other night by stating that the united mineworkers of his constituency were against it, and he put on the record seven reasons why they were against it. He then proceeded to say that they had made a series of careful researches over a period of time and found that they were against it. Why were they against it? Because it was going to be a danger to their livelihood. What I intend to say in reply to that is not said with the slightest idea of disparaging the united mineworkers. I am sure it will not be taken as such, either by them or by my friend.
Over the last fifty years Canada has been studying this project and has had at least ten or twelve reports strongly in favour of it. It began away back in 1919 when the international joint commission, after having given it the most careful study, decided that power and navigation should be developed on the St. Lawrence. Later on they appointed a joint board of United States and Canadian engineers which went into the matter most carefully and decided it was a good thing for Canada. Then later on both countries appointed a board composed of three Canadian engineers and three United States engineers who studied it for several years and came to the conclusion that it was a good thing for Canada from the point of view of engineering and economy as well. The 

international joint commission gave it further consideration and again reported in favour of it.
Then there was convened in Ottawa in 1928 a conference of Canadian engineers who gave it their unqualified approval. Later on-this will reply in part to some of the allegations made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South concerning the lukewarmness of the province of Quebec-a board composed of one Quebec engineer, one Ontario engineer and one federal engineer declared themselves in favour of this project.
In 1932 a treaty was signed by Canada and the United States known as the treaty of Washington. This supported the project, the only difference being that it was to be a two-stage development instead of one-stage, with a control dam. The Prime Minister of that time was a maritimer. Surely he must have weighed the arguments for and against the part of the country from which he had originally come. He declared himself in favour of the scheme. Then in 1941 a government headed by the late W. L. Mackenzie King signed the great lakes and St. Lawrence basin agreement. That was done only after careful consideration. Economic studies were made by various departments of government, a recent one being by the Department of Trade and Commerce which was made in 1951. After careful investigation they concluded that this was a good thing, not for one part but for all parts of Canada.
The last but not the least of the arguments which I think should be replied to and which was put forward not so much by the hon. member for Cape Breton South as by the hon. member for Royal, and the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings, was that by no stretch of the imagination could this be conceived as a defence project. They asked by what means this could be considered as being helpful to defence. My answer is that the permanent joint board on defence composed of United States and Canadian representatives gave this project most careful consideration. Let me read the evidence given by none other than Hon. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State of the United States of America, before the committee on public works of the United States congress. He said:
Our reliance on Canada, and Canada's reliance on us, is not confined to the economic or political field. From a military point of view the defence of the United States cannot be conducted independently of the defence of Canada. The two countries compose a single defensive unit. This fact was officially recognized in 1940 when the permanent joint board on defence was established to consider means by which the United States and Canada could co-operate more fully for their common security. This board functions today with increasing effectiveness and earlier this month it, made a

joint recommendation concerning the military value of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. The board's statement is as follows:
"The board re-examined the St. Lawrence seaway and power project in the light of the serious international situation and the needs of the continental defence. The board also reaffirmed the value of the project in peacetime and considered anew its immediate importance in terms of the present-day defence of the northern half of this continent.
"Since the board's previous recommendations of May, 1947, and December, 1948, the international situation had deteriorated markedly. In the Far East, there had already been fighting which involved both Canada and the United States. Other dangerous situations which might lead to open combat involving our two nations existed in other parts of the world. It appeared that the free nations might be entering a period of protracted crisis during which it was imperative that our military strength be steadily increased.
"In view of these ominous circumstances, the board believed it had a duty again to recommend early construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. The project would yield additional supplies of hydroelectric power-supplies which were already needed in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada, and which later would become vital to the expansion of our military strength. The seaway would provide an inland waterway relatively safe from enemy action. It would enable the two countries to move war materials at less cost in money and resources than by any other means. In addition, the seaway would permit greatly increased shipbuilding and ship repairs in the relatively well protected great lakes shipyards.
I am not making that statement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the minister explain why the United States turned it down after such a strong recommendation?


Lionel Chevrier: In a moment, I am going to deal with the very argument you brought up, but I should like to say now that these are not my words. These are the words of the Secretary of State of the United States, who also quotes the permanent joint board on defence. He continues with the statement of the permanent joint board on defence as follows:
The diminution of the iron ore supplies of the Mesabi range, coupled with the discovery and development of large new deposits of high grade ore in Labrador, constituted an added reason for immediate commencement of work on the project. Since Labrador iron ore could be transported most economically by ship to the large steel producing centres of the great lakes, the value of the Labrador mines, so necessary to defence industry, could be fully exploited only by building the seaway. In the board's opinion the addition which the project would make to our military potential would far outweigh the initial expenditure in manpower, money and critical materials. Much of these materials would be required in any event because if the combined project for navigation and power were not now proceeded with alternative sources of power would have to be provided. The board recognized the risk to the St. Lawrence seaway project from enemy attack. It was of the opinion, however, that this risk was no greater than the danger to many other existing installations of comparable importance. Since the area concerned was already one of high defence priority, the board believed that adequate protective measures would 94699-107
St. Lawrence Waterway be possible on a reasonably economic basis. Having in mind these considerations and reaffirming its previous recommendation, the board recommended: "That the two governments take immediate action to implement the 1941 St. Lawrence agreement as a vital measure for their common defence."
I have cited that at [DOT] some length for the simple reason that I felt the words I had uttered in my original statement did not suffice. Therefore I bring to my support not only the statement of Dean Acheson but also the statement of the permanent joint board on defence. Then I go on to the second argument raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He said-and I presume I am not misquoting him when I say he referred to the supporting documents which he had from the united mine workers union- that if this project goes through they fear that the coal industry in the maritime provinces will be made to disappear. My answer to that is twofold. First I say that we have just concluded a debate on railway legislation. I say that we have also had the benefit of the report of the royal commission on transportation. I say that the maritime provinces were represented by very able counsel before that royal commission, who brought forward the point of view of the maritimes. What did they say to the royal commission? In effect they said: We live in a far-away part of the country in so far as the central markets are concerned. Therefore we have a long haul to get into those markets and very often we have an equally long haul to bring back our raw materials to the maritime provinces. We have not, like the central provinces, highway competition and the like. Our economy, they said, is one which should normally move from north to south but because of confederation it has been forced to move from east to west. I do not think anyone will challenge my statement, because I think those are the facts. The maritime provinces complained at that time, and with reason and justice, that that position created a disadvantage in so far as they were concerned.
Having said to the royal commission on transportation that that was the position in which they found themselves, namely that there was this long rail haul to the markets and the long haul back, surely when an open seaway is offered, when an alternative route is offered whereby they can move their products not only into the Montreal market but into the great Toronto market and the markets of the great lakes, to my way of thinking that has relieved the situation to some extent. Then I add that not only is the position relieved by the construction of the seaway; it is also relieved by the fact

St. Lawrence Waterway that rates will be equalized in the rest of Canada. East-west rates will be reduced because of the subsidy of $7 million which will be paid and because of the one and one-third rule. The maritimes will also get the benefit of that. I submit, with deference, that is an answer to the point raised by my hon. friend when he says that their livelihood will be made to disappear on account of the construction of the seaway.


Clarence Gillis: The minister has just confirmed what I said.


Lionel Chevrier: The next argument I make has to do with the coal industry. What is the position of that industry? Without wanting to disagree with my hon. friend, or with the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings and the hon. member for Royal in their summation of the position in so far as the coal industry is concerned, I do not think they need be so apprehensive as they were in their speeches because I do not think the position they put on Hansard is an accurate one. I have before me statistics furnished by the bureau of statistics which indicate the distribution of Nova Scotia coal production. With the consent of the house I should like to place it on Hansard. It indicates that the total Nova Scotia production of coal in 1939 was 6,857,000 tons, and the total production of Nova Scotia coal in 1950 was 6,517,000 tons. The point I wish to make is that of the total of 6,857,000 tons in 1939, some
3.743.000	tons were used in the maritimes and 3,114,000 tons were shipped to central Canada, Quebec and Ontario, whereas in 1950 of the 6,517,000 tons of coal produced in Nova Scotia 4,717,000 were used for local consumption and only 1,800,000 were moved into Quebec and Ontario.
The point I am making is that the table indicates that the demand for coal within the maritime provinces has increased from
3.743.000	tons in 1939 to 4,717,000 tons in 1950. In other words, local demand consumed 55 per cent of the production in 1939 and 72 per cent in 1950. These are facts. At this rate the full production will be consumed in the maritimes in another ten or fifteen years. The simple fact, as I understand the problem, appears to be that Nova Scotia coal already is withdrawing from the central Canada markets. Before the war as much as 2,300,000 tons of maritime coal were shipped into Quebec in one year and as much as 1,300,000 tons into Ontario. The total shipment of Nova Scotia coal to central Canada in 1939 was 3,114,000 tons. The decline is not for want of transportation facilities or assistance, and certainly not for lack of demand; because if I correctly recall the statement made by

the president of the Canadian National Railways in the committee on railways and shipping it was that the Canadian National Railways could have taken another 1,100,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal if it had been available. It was not available, and the railway had to obtain coal from the United States. I believe it can safely be said that at least another 2 million tons of coal would have been required in the central market. What is happening to Nova Scotia coal is simply this. Because of requirements for power production, coal for their own employees, for their own collieries, for bunkers, for railways in the maritimes, for their steel plants and for Newfoundland, the maritimes are gradually using up the full production of coal. If I have permission I should like to put this table on Hansard.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: The table is as follows:
Distribution of Nova Scotia Coal Production
	1950	1939
	tons	tons
Employees use 	
Colliery use 	.. 140,000 .. 310,000 .. 85,000	123.000 361.000 310.000 841.000 767.000 1,195,000 143.000 3,000Railway, maritimes 	
Steel plants (coking coal) .. Other maritime 	
Newfoundland 	
Export 	.. 1,190,000 .. 1,100,000 . . 1,588,000 .. 247,000 .. 57,000	Total maritime 	
Quebec and Ontario* 	.. 4,717,000 .. 1,800,000	3.743.000 3.114.0006,517,000	6,857,000
* (Includes about 250.000 tons for railway use. Subvention paid on about 1,200,000 tons.)
The above table indicates that the demand for coal within the maritimes has increased from 3,743,000 tons in 1939 to 4,717,000 tons in 1950. In other words the local demand consumed 55 per cent of the production in 1939 and 72 per cent in 1950. At this rate the full production will be consumed in the maritimes in another 10 or 15 years.
As I see it, Mr. Chairman, this thing promises to continue. There is an increasing use of coal in the maritime provinces in producing electricity and for serving new industries. Consumption in blast furnaces and steel mills may increase. If these trends continue, as I said, by the time the seaway is opened there may be little or no surplus of Nova Scotia coal. If my hon. friends argument is sound in so far as the deepening of the channel to 27 feet is concerned, surely it was sound with reference to the 9-foot channel and with reference to the 14-foot channel. I do not think anyone in the house would attempt to argue that construction of

the 9-foot channel or the 14-foot channel has had any effect on the coal industry of the maritime provinces.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Before the
minister leaves this point, would he reassure the house with respect to the position of Nova Scotia coal? I point out that it has been recognized that Nova Scotia has to market a large tonnage of coal in central Canada where it meets the cheap water-borne coal imported into Canada, and which would come into Canada under the conditions which would exist if this canal were constructed.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not admitting that cheap water-borne United States coal is going to come down to Montreal, because United States coal has to travel all the way from the mines up to lake Erie, then be transferred to ships and moved down to Montreal. I am not admitting, therefore, the premise of my hon. friend's argument. The point I am trying to make-


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister admits it is being transported on the lake now, does he not?


Lionel Chevrier: The point I am making now is that according to the table I have put on Hansard the maritime people are gradually consuming greater amounts of their own coal production. For the year 1950, according to the table, they consumed it to the extent of 72 per cent. This is an increase from 55 per cent in 1939. I should like to go on, Mr. Chairman-


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to point out that Nova Scotia has an objective of 10 million tons per year; that has been the objective for a long time. This objective will never be reached under the proposal put forward by the minister. It would appear to me that he is satisfied with that condition. We must allow our production to diminish, and we are not to expect the expansion of that industry in order to market coal in central Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Nothing that is going to be done under this resolution or either of the two bills following will affect the production of coal, as I see it.
If I may I should like to go on with the other point made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), and I believe supported by other hon. members, although my memory does not serve me sufficiently well to be able to quote them, and perhaps they may get up and say I am mistaken in the statement. In any event the point was
St. Lawrence Waterway made by the member for Cape Breton South: why export iron ore? I believe the words he used were these: To whom are we making the iron ore available? Why export iron ore? Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need answer that argument, because the people of this country answered it many years ago. What happened to our gold and our silver in northern Ontario and northern Quebec? Did we not decide to export it? Were not whole groups of communities established in both provinces because of that development, and because of that policy to export those natural resources? What happened to the lake St. John district in the province of Quebec in which aluminum is being produced? A whole area that was undeveloped and uncolonized for many years was developed because the aluminum industry came there and exported the product to the United Kingdom, the United States and perhaps to other countries. A series of communities was built along that area.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Do they export the raw ore or do they refine it?


Lionel Chevrier: Will my hon friend allow me to continue? My hon. friend made his speech. He is at liberty to make another speech if he wishes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am sorry to interrupt the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to reply to the arguments that are being made, but if I am to be interrupted continually it is rather difficult to make an argument.


Percy Chapman Black: I believe it is proper that we should deal with these points as we go along. I should like to ask the minister whether his argument applies to the great pulpwood industry. Is he opposed to having the pulpwood manufactured into its final form here, or should we go back 25 years or more and ship it in the rawest form possible to the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will only hold his peace I shall deal with pulpwood in a moment. At the moment I am dealing with this argument: why should we export iron ore? I ask your permission, Mr. Chairman, to be allowed to continue. If there are any questions I will do the best I can to answer them afterwards. When I am attempting to answer this argument I do not think it is fair that I should be subjected to continual interruptions from the other side. I said, why did we decide to export Steep Rock ore? Why was it that we decided to export copper and nickel from northern Manitoba? Why did this house at the last session vote substantial

St. Lawrence Waterway sums of money to the Canadian National Railways to help develop the nickel and copper deposits at Lynn Lake by the building of a railway? What about oil in Alberta? Is it a crime to export aluminum from Kitimat? At the next session of parliament I hope to be in a position to introduce a bill which will, I trust, bring about the construction of a railway from Kitimat to join with the Prince Rupert-Prince George line. In this area there will be a tremendous aluminum development, and I am informed a white man has never put his foot on that spot. Why do we do that?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: To keep on exporting the aluminum we have instead of manufacturing it; that is why we do it.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member wants to follow his argument to its logical conclusion, why do we export wheat?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We do not export any more than the surplus we have. My argument is that we are not manufacturing enough in this country; we are exporting.


Lionel Chevrier: All right. That is exactly what we are going to do, as I see it. That is exactly what we are doing with aluminum. That is exactly what we are doing with all these natural resources.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This country exports-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: We do not export any more than we have surplus to our own requirements; and if that is the case, I think that is a reply to the argument raised by my hon. friends. I could go on and say this. If our friends on the other side of the line were to adopt the same argument, where would we in central Canada get our coal? Where would we get our oil, our cotton, our steel, our rubber or our tin?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You can get anything you want.


Lionel Chevrier: Those are questions that I think are significant answers to those raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
Another point that was made was this: Why not build up our mills in our own country? On that point, Mr. Chairman, I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings and the leader of the opposition, who did not go nearly as far as did the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings or the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Clarence Gillis: He did not understand as well.


Lionel Chevrier: He said: I have no objection to exporting ore provided we see to it that

some assistance is given to our own mills.
I hope it will be possible to do that, and that takes me to the point raised by the hon. member for Cumberland with respect to pulpwood and the paper industry. That was a point made by the leader of the opposition, namely that in the pulpwood industry and in the timber industry we were able to place certain conditions on the export of this pulpwood, when we stipulated that mills for the production and fabrication of paper would be established in our own country, as they have been.
But the position as to pulpwood compared with the position as to iron ore is as day is to night. In pulpwood and in timber we have a monopoly; but in iron ore we are not in that fortunate position. In iron ore we are in a competitive position. We have to compete with iron ore from Liberia, from Venezuela and from other countries. We therefore cannot stipulate. Then again, when I say "we cannot" I refer unquestionably to the provincial governments; and I say this without the slightest desire to be disparaging of them, because these are matters which concern provincial governments. The timber rights and the rights concerning iron ore in Ungava and Newfoundland are those arising out of provincial jurisdiction; and if anyone can tie down the owners, it is the provincial governments. But I am saying that the position, so far as a provincial government is concerned, with reference to iron ore is entirely different from that with reference to pulp and paper.
Then again it has been suggested that Canadians do not want to be merely hewers of wood and drawers of water. I agree with those sentiments. I wish to make it clear that I am not disparaging in any sense the hewers of wood and the drawers of water; but that is not the point. The point is that we want other Canadians to work on the wood and on the water too, in shaping them to their ultimate uses. In this case, that of iron ore, we want Canadians to have the opportunity of mining it and moving it to market. We hope also that other Canadians will have a large share-the larger the better -in the smelting of the iron, in producing the steel, yes and in fabricating the steel into finished products. The production of steel ingots and castings in Canada, for instance, has increased from a total of 1,551,000 net tons in 1939 to a total of 3,383,000 in 1950. I am not able to say what the production is in Nova Scotia, because this concerns one company alone and I am not at liberty to produce the figures I have; but I may say

that the Nova Scotia production was substantial and that province has shared tremendously in the expansion which I have just mentioned.
There is no evidence-certainly none on the record so far in this debate-that the completion of the seaway will put an end to the expansion of Nova Scotia's steel industry. As a matter of fact it appears that some reduction in the cost of production, possibly a substantial one, can be effected by mixing Labrador ore with Wabana ore in the blast furnaces. Iron and steel costs may be further reduced to the extent that the cost of coal is lowered by the mechanization now under way in the coal mines. All these forces will, I think, tend to strengthen the steel industry not only in other parts of Canada but in the maritime provinces as well. The day before yesterday I had the good fortune of discussing this very problem with one greatly concerned with the production of steel in the maritime province of Nova Scotia. He immediately said to me: The seaway will not in the slightest degree harm our steel industry in Nova Scotia.
I now go on to the point which was made concerning navigation being window dressing for power. It has been suggested that we are not serious about the navigation, that it is only a question of window dressing. The federal government is using its best efforts, in this resolution and in the bills which will follow, to assist Ontario in developing
1.100.000	horsepower in the international rapids section of the river where it is required by that province. Then, in case my hon. friend should think that the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs sometime ago was indicative that there was a snag in Quebec, let me assure him that there is no snag in the province of Quebec; because there at Lachine it is hoped it will be possible to develop a joint power and navigation scheme as a result of which
1.200.000	horsepower of electrical energy will be produced. What prompts me to make the statement is that some two years ago I tabled in the House of Commons a joint report made by a board established by this government

the chairman was Mr. R. A. C. Henry, a prominent engineer of Montreal, a former deputy minister of the Department of Transport, a former chairman of the air transport board and a former officer of the Canadian National Railways-together with the Quebec hydro, in which several plans were submitted for the production of power and the development of navigation at Lachine. One of them particularly was recommended. It had to do with a joint power and navigation scheme at Lachine.
St. Lawrence Waterway
My hon. friend spoke disparagingly, I thought-I am sure he did not mean to do so but it looked to me as though he did-of the statement made in western Canada by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He spoke disparagingly, I thought, of his statement which he quoted to this effect: The St. Lawrence seaway must be built. Without it the steel industry now on the great lakes would have to migrate to the Atlantic coast.


Clarence Gillis: That statement was made in the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not denying that it was made there.


Clarence Gillis: You said the statement was made in the west.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept the correction. But the point I am making now is that surely that statement, taken out of its context, means an entirely different thing than if read with the context. What the Minister of Trade and Commerce was referring to unquestionably was the migration of steel industries to the Atlantic sea coast of the United States. And the argument he was probably making-I have not his text before me-was that it would be much better for us to take our iron ore in Labrador and Quebec and move it up to the great lakes, through the St. Lawrence seaway, and there sell it where there is a market, than leave it where it is doing nothing. That is the position I think he took.
Then he referred to shipbuilding in the great lakes, as I did, too. I think my friend the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings misunderstood or misinterpreted, not intentionally I am sure, the statement I had made. I had no intention of saying anything concerning the shipyards on the Atlantic coast. I was dealing with one thing only, and that was the great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway for defence purposes. I was trying to make the point that if we had the seaway we could build there, in an area which would be practically invulnerable to attack, destroyers, submarines, escort vessels, trawlers and the like, which could be taken down the deep waterway for defence purposes. That is the point I was trying to make, and I think it is exactly the point the permanent joint board on defence made. Certainly there could be no damage done to our maritime yards on the St. Lawrence river or on the Atlantic coast, because at the moment 1 think they have a considerable number of orders.
The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings discussed the question of finance. He will excuse me if I do not go into that now, because I do not think this is the stage to
1672	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway do that. There are financial sections in the bill which we will come to at the appropriate time. But I think the main point he made, and which I have not referred to up to now, is the adverse effect that this will have on the railways. Well, I made what I thought was a fairly considerable explanation of the position of the railways. Apparently it did not satisfy my hon. friend, and I do not think it satisfied the hon. member for Royal. However, he is entitled to his opinion. Perhaps if he will not take my argument he will at least take the argument of the president of the Canadian National Railways when he spoke to the railways and shipping committee-


George Clyde Nowlan: I would rather take the
minister's.


Lionel Chevrier: -on March 25, 1949. Mr. Hazen asked this question:
There Is another matter you referred to in addition to truck and air competition: you referred to the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterways. Now, you must have made some study on that, I presume?


Mr.   Vaughan@: Yes, sir.


Mr. Hazen:: What losses in revenue, or in railway business, do you anticipate if the St. Lawrence waterway is deepened?


Mr.   Vaughan@: We had our research and development department, and bureau of economies make a thorough study of that situation, because we were very anxious to know what traffic we might lose if the canals were deepened. After giving the matter much study and making a thorough investigation their report is, as I recall it, that they do not expect the railway will suffer any substantial loss of business at all because they consider that there will be so many new industries built up along these new waterways that the business we would get from these new industries would more than make up for what we might lose in any other direction. Mr. Hazen: When was that report made?


Mr.   Vaughan@: That report was made two or
three years ago.


Douglas King Hazen: Was it in 1947, or 1948, or prior to
that time?


Mr. Mutch:: In any event that was the conclusion. Mr. Vaughan:	I remember distinctly that the
conclusion reached in the report forecast no great loss of business. The report was made about two years ago but I cannot give you the exact date.
The successor to Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Donald Gordon, is of the same view and has so declared on more than one occasion in public statements. I think I am not taking too much upon myself when I say it is our view that the Canadian Pacific Railway are of the same opinion.
I have spoken altogether too long, Mr. Chairman. I had no intention of being so lengthy, but I did want to assure the committee and the hon. member for Cape Breton South that, like himself, I too am a Canadian and I believe in the development of our Canadian resources. If I did not I probably would not be in the house at all, because those who sent me here felt that was one of the first duties that I owed to them and to


this parliament. That, too, is the duty of the government. It feels that the resources of the country should be developed. Unquestionably, both from the point of view of power and the point of view of navigation, as well as from the point of view of iron ore and all the allied industries that will come out of it, those resources will mean a great deal to the economy of Canada. And to those who say that the taxpayers cannot foot the bill I say: wait a little while and see what the bill contains. I think it will be established, I hope beyond doubt, that it will be possible, as I stated in my initial speech, to self-liquidate the whole navigation part of -this scheme by means of -the imposition of tolls. With that, Mr. Chairman, I hope it will be possible to get on with the resolution.


Clarence Gillis: 
John Horne Blackmore: Why is that?


Clarence Gillis: They can make more money, and it is cheaper to import the coal and get the drawback from the government. That point the minister brought out in his figures. We are not putting any coal at all into Ontario at this time. Another thing of which I would remind the minister in connection with the production figures he gave us is that at least three large coal-producing collieries, namely collieries Nos. 2 and 11, and the Allen shaft, have closed, but which were operating on that short-week basis. One of them employed 1,500 men, but they have closed down since.
So the production figures do not help the minister's case at all. They merely prove what I have been saying over the years, that so far as that industry is concerned there is no national vision. It is a matter of shrinking the industry to cater to the market handiest to them, while they import coal from the United States and fill the market for which they themselves should be reaching.
St. Lawrence Waterway


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to make one comment. The hon. member is making a most admirable case. Everyone is rejoicing because of the work he is doing; a man who comes from the mines, and who can express himself so admirably here in the House of Commons. I compliment him in the highest measure. I should like to ask him one or two questions so that he may enlighten us with his answers. Can he give us any connection between this shrinkage and any economic factor the impact of which is likely to be intensified by the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is a poser.


Clarence Gillis: No, that is not a poser. There is no particular economic factor in Nova Scotia that would work to the detriment of that industry, due to the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. But there is one point, and I was just about to discuss it. The minister made the statement again that the opening of the seaway would increase the opportunity of putting Nova Scotia coal on the Ontario market, and that it would not affect the future of that industry at all. He pointed out the argument related to subsidies, subventions and the like, as applied to long hauls. Let me point out to him that we already have our water route. We can ship from Louisburg and Sydney-more particularly from Louisburg, which is open all winter-by way of the St. Lawrence during the months it is open. Indeed that method of shipment could be used nearly all winter, if necessary, although the insurance is lifted at the end of eight months.
I am pointing out that we already have that water route for the shipment of Canadian coal. The only reason we are able to stay in the Montreal market is that it is the only market that is economical so far as Nova Scotia coal is concerned. We stay in that market because the Americans cannot get in there by a water route. Even now the coal marketed in Quebec is subsidized by the federal government to enable it to get in there on a competitive basis with United States coal, even with the handicap of the rail haul. Therefore, instead of doing what the minister suggests it will do, namely expand the market for us, it will open up a water route and cheapen transportation for United States coal. This will back the Nova Scotia product out of the Montreal market.
I am not blaming the government for the policy of shrinking the industry, and for the fact that the Dominion Steel and Coal Company has gone into the importing
1674	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway business. That is entirely a matter of the policy of the company, and it is one I have kicked around for a long time.


John Horne Blackmore: May I interrupt again by asking another question? I am looking for a solution, of course. If the dominion government were to agree to a subsidy on Nova Scotia coal, to offset the advantage given to the United States, would that not obviate the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member?


Clarence Gillis: No; I think it is false economy to spend $400 million to build a seaway which will give the Americans the advantage in that market, and then ask the taxpayers of Canada to subsidize the movement of one of our own resources into a market they have already paid to get. There is a limit to the extent to which we can keep going down into the pockets of the taxpayers.
Let me point out to the minister that his arguments with respect to the coal situation are not valid. I am not criticizing him. I would not argue stare decisis with him; that is his field. But in this particular field let ' me tell him that I have a lot of kinks in my spine from shovelling coal, which was my business for years. I am not biased; I like to be fair; but when a company follows a faulty policy in developing an industry, and follows the line of least resistance by shrinking the industry, and leans on the arm of the government wherever it can, as well as going into the importing business because it is cheaper and perhaps more lucrative, I believe I am called upon to say something. It is not building a Canadian industry.
One other point I would like to make, in respect of what the minister had to say. On the point as to why we should export our iron ore, my answer is that we should export our surplus. I have no objection to that. But we should not be in the position of simply developing and opening up our raw materials in order to make them available to the United States. As far as steel is concerned, we are completely dependent today upon the United States. The scream all the time is that we cannot get steel for automobiles and for our defence requirements. I know of one city that wants to get a 200,000 gallon boiler for the water supply in one important section and they cannot get it because there is no steel. If we are not able to supply our own requirements in steel the logical thing for us to do is to export our surplus ore. That is what we are doing with wheat. I think it is wrong to think just in terms of opening up our raw materials and making them available to the United States.
I say to the minister that this business of depending on the United States is going to
fMr. Gillis.]

catch up with us some day unless we are going to sit by and be absorbed by them. We must make up our minds one way or another. The minister said that we are dependent upon the United States for coal. That is quite true, but we should not be. The minister asks where we would get coal. We can get it in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta in unlimited supply and in British Columbia. It is merely a matter of developing our own resources and freeing ourselves from the economic dictatorship which the United States can wield if they so desire. The same thing is true of steel. This country should not be in the position of having to import steel to meet our ordinary requirements. As I suggested when I spoke before, I am prepared to support this project as one part of a large public investment program by the federal government. This authority to be set up should have the right to develop any potential power or other resource within a reasonable distance of that area.
I should like to point out to the minister that steel production in this country is not as great as it should be. It is no good going back to 1939 because we were in a pretty bad way from the production standpoint in that year. When you start with 1948 you really get at the place where we began to slip with a lot of things. I put the figures on record a couple of days ago when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was present. In the last fifteen months the production of basic steel in this country has been stationary while production in the United States has gone up from 35 to 40 per cent. They are really going ahead down there.
I think the government would be well advised to have another basic steel plant. This would not be asking very much. We would still be exporting our raw materials to the large centres for fabrication. The steel plant at Sydney employs about 4,500 men in the manufacture of basic steel. I do not care where you pick a site, in Pictou county or in Prince Edward Island or in Newfoundland; you would still be close to the raw materials. A new plant could be set up or the Sydney plant could be expanded, possibly by the use of public funds. That would cure a lot of problems. A market would be provided for what Prince Edward Island is producing. I should like to see enough industry down in that part of the country to absorb all the production of the maritimes. It is not asking very much to say that we should try to stand on our own feet in this matter of using raw materials. Another instance is the aluminum industry.

There is no excuse for allowing United States capital to come in here and develop the great aluminum industry practically at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. The headquarters of that industry is in the United States, and the control lies in that country. The same thing is true in connection with pulpwood. Go down along the New Brunswick border and take a look at what is happening. People from the United States have been coming there to lease our timber lands and cut our pulpwood. They have a belt line running across the border to take the raw materials over there to be processed into paper which we buy back at $90 per ton.


An hon. Member:: More than that.


Clarence Gillis: It was $90 the last time I heard about it, and that is bad enough. I am quite sticky on this business of looking after ourselves first. If we have any surplus we can export it as we do with wheat. I am not going to argue any longer. I have stated my case, and I simply wanted .to straighten out the minister on these production figures. Instead of hurting my case all he has done is confirm what I suspected right along, that there is no intention to look after maritime needs. I suggest to the minister that it is nearly .time that we developed our own resources, such as coal, for ourselves. With the potential supplies of coal we have we should not have to depend upon the United States to the extent we do at the present time. We should not have to face a recurrence of the fuel crisis on the Canadian National which we had a couple of years ago.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, the minister seems to want to rush through this important legislation, about which a great many people in my part of the country have considerable doubt. Some of the members from down there have expressed trepidation as to what the results will be. I think we should have all these matters cleared up. I am not going to delay the committee but I just want to express my views. I have expressed them before and they are on record.
I am not opposed, as one good Canadian in a family which has done a lot over the years in making Canada possible, to the development of this country or to the development of the power resources in central Canada, but I want to know what there is for Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces to compensate for the contribution they have made to Canada and to give them the place they should have in confederation. We should
St. Lawrence Waterway have a more definite statement from the minister and the government at this time than the minister gave today or a few days ago. I am not opposed to what is being done in central Canada, but I am not satisfied with what is being done to develop our resources in Nova Scotia. I am opposed to having this go through until there is further discussion.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue the debate on these two resolutions. The debate to date has covered both resolutions because nearly every speaker has referred to power. I thought it was understood that both resolutions would be discussed on the motion and in committee. I think that was agreed to by the leaders of all parties. I would suggest that tomorrow after we complete the resolution the house agree to undertake a study of the bills. We would propose starting with the large one concerning the seaway.


Howard Charles Green: We will not even have seen the bills.


Alphonse Fournier: I will give the hon. member my copy. We could proceed with the power bill. The agreement has been on the table since Monday, and if you would prefer we could proceed with the bill to ratify the agreement with the province of Ontario. If we do not come to any agreement, we will take up the resolution concerning the Dominion Elections Act; the bill to provide for the establishment of an agricultural products board; Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act, and then the resolution of the Secretary of State to amend the Civil Service Act.


William Joseph Browne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked you when we were in committee if we were discussing both resolutions or just one, and I think you replied we were discussing the waterway. I did understand that we were on both resolutions at that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Any
reply that I might make should have been made when we were in committee, but if the house will permit me, may I say that I think I was right. The only resolution I had before me was the one concerning the waterway.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 7, 1951
Tho house met at two o'clock.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table two copies in English and French oi order in council P.C. 6598 of December 6, 1951, passed under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, authorizing the admission to Canada, free of customs duty and excise taxes, of personal gifts, not exceeding $25 in value, and not including cigarettes, tobacco and alcoholic beverages, from members of the Canadian forces serving abroad. This provision is similar to that which was made during the last war, and it is intended to allow these brave young men serving abroad to feel that they are in closer contact with their families at home.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I understand that the clerk of petitions has laid on the table four petitions from religious bodies for private bills. It had not been intended, as hon. members know, to have any private bills dealt with at this session; but it has been represented to us, and to the leaders of the other groups of the house, that with respect to these four bills they were intended to relieve their anxieties about some possible illegality in the investment of trust funds of these religious bodies; and after discussing the matter with the leaders of other groups I felt we might ask for unanimous consent to make an exception for these religious bodies, it being still understood this will be the only exception, and that none will be made for any private interests.
The petitions are from the general synod of the Church of England in Canada and the missionary society of the Church of England in Canada, for an act authorizing them to consolidate, manage and invest the trust funds under their control as one fund to be known as the Church of England consolidated trust fund, and for other incidental purposes. I understand that these trust funds are now in a provincially incorporated trust
company, and that as the investments are made in more than one province in Canada the synod of the Anglican church has been advised that there may be some illegality in their proceedings, and they are quite anxious to have that removed at the earliest possible opportunity.
The other is from the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence of Kingston, Ontario, for an act to incorporate the Sisters of Providence. They have provincial charters in several of the provinces, but they also have the same body of assets distributed throughout several provinces, and they have been advised that their position in that regard is not strictly in conformity with our general laws.
The next one is from Edward G. Wheeler and others, of Langham, Saskatchewan, representing Canadians of the Mennonite brotherhood. They are applying for the usual incorporation as a recognized church society. It was felt that if any exception were made for any one of these groups the exception would have to extend to the other two, because it would be felt, I was sure, by all members of the house, that there should be no discrimination between them on religious grounds. But again I wish to assure the house that it is not intended to make any exception for any private interests. It is only because these are semi-public bodies that it was felt the house might be prepared to allow a special exception in their regard. I move, therefore:
That the following petitions for private bills presented on December 6. 1951, together with the report made thereon by the clerk of petitions on December 7, 1951, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable in relation to standing orders 92 and 93(3) (a) and (b), namely:
Of the general synod of the Church of England in Canada, and the missionaary society of the Church of England in Canada, for an act authorizing them to consolidate, manage and invest the trust funds under their control as one fund to be known as the Church of England consolidated trust fund, and for other purposes.
Of the general synod of the Church of England in Canada, for an act amending its act of incorporation with respect to investment of its funds, and for other purposes.
Of the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence at Kingston, Ontario, for an act to incorporate the Sisters of Providence.
Of Edward G. Wheeler and others, of Langham, Saskatchewan, for an act to incorporate Evangelical Mennonite Brethren of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
1678	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or his parliamentary assistant, to whom I have given notice of the question. How many Trans-Canada Air Lines pilots have been suspended from the service because they have refused to allow extra passengers or transportation officials on the flight deck of T.C.A. planes?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this question refers to a matter of internal management of Trans-Canada Air Lines. No one outside the personnel of Trans-Canada Air Lines is involved. It has never been the practice to answer questions in the house about the internal management of either the Canadian National Railways or Trans-Canada Air Lines. Therefore I must decline to answer the question.
[Later: ]


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it is not the custom for the house to have information when a strike is pending on the C.N.R., or any organization that is publicly owned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no strike pending anywhere. If my hon. friend does,-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Impending, I should say.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -then, a question in the house would be a very good way of fomenting such a strike.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the last statement made is one that is not in keeping with a response to a member who asks for information on the orders of the day. I say the last answer given is not one that is in keeping with the minister's responsibility to the house, if it is directed to the government which operates the business in question. There is no reason why an answer could not be given in regard to any detail of the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines or the Canadian National Railways in connection with a matter which is not the subject of strict secrecy. It is a question to which every member of the house and the people of Canada should receive an answer.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED REMARKS OF MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN WINNIPEG &quot;FREE PRESS&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on press statements to the effect that legislation would be introduced at the present session to provide credit to farmers for unthreshed or unsold grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has somewhat distorted the statement in the paper. The statement in the paper was correct. It said I was prepared to recommend to my colleagues that legislation be introduced- and if my hon. friend would just be a little patient, perhaps he will see the outcome of my recommendation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. To what extent do the offices of the national employment service recognize the labour laws of the various provinces in which national employment service offices are located, when making referrals? If there are any exceptions, will the minister give an explanation?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South warned me that he was going to ask this question. In reply I think I could not do better than quote the pertinent instructions issued to officers of the national employment service of the unemployment insurance' commission. Those instructions are:
When, orders are listed with any local office by an. employer, and when such orders do not offer the minimum wages or working conditions specifically required by dominion statute or regulation, or by provincial statute or regulation, any variation from prescribed conditions will be brought to the attention of the employer in order that he may have opportunity to make correction. Only if the employer fails to make such correction, should the office refuse to undertake to fill the vacancies listed. The fact that an applicant may be willing to accept employment at a standard lower than that prescribed by governmental regulations furnishes no warrant whatever for the office to make a placement at less than the standard.
It is the responsibility of each local office to keep itself informed of all statutes or regulations fixing wages and working conditions in its district. These may include the fair wage schedules set by the Department of Labour regulating rates of pay on,

dominion government contracts; minimum rates of pay for workers fixed by the minimum wage board of the province; wage rates called for in legalized wage agreements between groups of employers and employees; and any other comparable legislation or regulations which may be issued from time to time.
As to the last part of the question, in which the hon. member asked me to give an explanation, if there are any exceptions, I would say that, in reality, there are no exceptions. But if an employer quotes in his order to the national employment service less than the provincial minimum rate of wages, the matter is drawn to his attention and, if he corrects it, nothing further is done.



MING SUNG INDUSTRIAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question regarding a subject which has been before the house for some time. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has yet passed an order in council revoking the right of the Ming Sung Company to fly the Canadian flag?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; the government has not yet passed an order in council revoking the right of the Ming Sung Company, on the ships registered in Canada, to fly the Canadian flag. As a matter of fact that is incidental to the registry. What would have to be done would be to remove the ships from Canadian registry, and that is a matter which is still under consideration.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY  DEEP WATERWAY BETWEEN MONTREAL AND LAKE ERIE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 6, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Dion in the chair:
That it is expedient, for the purpose of providing a deep waterway between Montreal and lake Erie, to create a corporation to be called "the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority" with power, inter alia, to expropriate; to construct, maintain and operate all necessary works; to borrow amounts not exceeding three hundred million dollars; to establish tariffs of tolls and to employ such officers and employees as may be required for the purposes of the authority.
Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, in previous sessions, and again yesterday, I have stated that I am not opposed to a deep waterway serving central Canada and for the development of power resources, but I am
St. Lawrence Waterway interested in any menace there may be to the interests of the maritime provinces. I am interested in what compensating expenditures are proposed to benefit my part of the country.
I am very much disappointed in the statement of the minister, in that there appears to be no compensating expenditure proposed which would be of direct benefit to the maritime provinces. Instead, to some extent our interests are menaced. In addition we have to make a very definite contribution to the provision of $300 million, and probably double that amount, for the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. From every standpoint I say there should be a statement from the minister as to what is proposed by way of direct assistance to us in Nova Scotia, and the other maritime provinces. There is the question of the Chignecto canal. The minister made a personal investigation of the St. Lawrence seaway and brought in direct recommendations involving large expenditures, but even though it comes under his department he has not made a similar investigation of the proposal to build the Chignecto canal which has been before Canada ever since confederation and even before that time. A large delegation made representations on behalf of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and I believe Newfoundland, for the building of the Chignecto canal, but they were brushed aside. Nothing is being done. This is an opportune time for the minister to state what is proposed with respect to the Chignecto canal and what compensating expenditures will be made to us for the development of the St. Lawrence seaway and power projects.
I made a statement on June 7, 1951, and at that time I asked the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) whether he had made an inspection of the Chignecto canal. At that time I said, and I quote from page 3840 of Hansard:
I doubt whether the minister has made an inspection of the Chignecto canal and whether he gave support to its construction when a very large delegation came here. It was rather enlightening to see the interest which the Minister of Transport took in the proposed St. Lawrence seaway. He accompanied a large delegation over the St. Lawrence river inspecting that part of the river in which the seaway is proposed to be built at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, and perhaps a billion dollars, which would give cheap power to central Canada when constructed. I do not say that I am opposed to that expenditure, but I would expect some compensating expenditures in my part of the country.
I again put that question to the minister and to the government. I repeat that this is an opportune time to have a statement. We are a part of Canada and we have rights in Canada. We have the right to expect the
1680	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway adoption of policies that will be of direct benefit to us. Originally we had vested rights in the hinterland of Quebec and the great iron ore deposits in Quebec belonged to Nova Scotia as one of the original provinces. We are receiving no benefit from the development of that great resource. The same applies to the great nickel industry in central Canada; no direct benefit accrues'to us in that connection. I think we have certain rights in the power development on the St. Lawrence. We were interested in the seaway at the time of confederation and I think we have some rights there. The same would apply to the great oil deposits in Alberta and western Canada. We are not receiving any benefit in that connection and in many others that I could cite.
In 1947 I quoted figures to show that up to that time there had been expended in Canada for canals a total of $243,352,399.78; practically all in central Canada, and hardly a dollar in our part of the country. There had been paid out for deficits and maintenance on the canals a total of $114,130,209.81 up to that time, with hardly a dollar of that being expended in the maritime provinces.
Then there is the question of shipbuilding. Shipbuilding is the birthright of the maritime provinces. At the time of confederation we had scores of shipyards and I contend that that industry should be developed and not be permitted to follow the lead given by the Minister of Transport when he proposed, I suppose in encouragement of central Canada, that there should be a further development of shipyards in central Canada but nothing for us in the east. That was confirmed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who stated a short time ago that shipyards are to be developed in central Canada. No hope is held out by the minister or the government of a development in our part of Canada.
I say that we are entitled to that. That is our birthright as Nova Scotians who came into confederation eighty odd years ago. There is nothing in this proposal now before us which holds out any hope of any development in our part of the country. Most shipyards are developed by direct appropriations by the government for naval or transport purposes. The government not only has the power, it has the duty to allocate expenditures to our part of Canada, especially as we have not fared as we should have fared under confederation. We have always been prepared to make our contribution, but there is never any development for us. The government is spending $300 to $600 million here and more than that for power development, but there is nothing whatever for our part of Canada.
In the statement he made the minister said that 75 to 80 per cent of the steel mills in


the United States would be tributary to this development of iron ore in Quebec and to our seaway. An effort is being made to divert these great iron ore deposits largely for the benefit of the United States. Nothing is being done to build up a steel industry in Nova Scotia. I think it is the duty of the minister and the government, at a time when steel is so greatly needed, to enlarge the present steel plant there or build supplementary industries. That must be done if we are to take our proper place in the development of Canada. At page 1576 of Hansard for December 4 the minister said in reference to this iron ore:
The problem thus is one of a growing gap between supplies and requirements. This gap can be filled partly with imported ore from Quebec-Labrador . . .
Further on he had this to say:
The new ore traffic. Completion of the seaway would change this picture completely. Quebec-Labrador ores, after paying any likely toll, would be enabled to compete in most of the lake districts at current prices for ore.
It is all for the development of that part of Canada and the United States, and there is nothing whatever for the people of Nova Scotia or other parts of eastern Canada. Further on he had this to say:
These facilities make available a plentiful supply of iron ore at a low cost, on which were based the great steel centres of today. Now that production of those ores has reached its limit and costs threaten to increase sharply, the new facilities will make available new and expansible supplies at comparatively low cost.
I could quote more of what the minister said, but what I want to point out is that his whole interest is in providing for development in central Canada and the United States. He does not utter a word to give any indication of assistance to Nova Scotia or eastern Canada generally. In putting forward these observations, I want to repeat that I am not opposed to the development of the St. Lawrence waterway and power project, but I want some statement from the minister and the government on what is proposed for the building up of Nova Scotia and eastern Canada. Some encouragement was in the statement of the leader of the opposition which was quoted the other day by my desk-mate, the hon. member for Royal. I should like to quote it again. It is to be found at page 1465 of Hansard for December 6, and reads as follows:
We have mills on the Atlantic seaboard today. As we plan for the use of iron ore, let us make sure that those mills now existing in eastern Canada are supplied with iron ore on a scale which will require much greater milling capacity than they have today. And let us recognize that while there are immense advantages in carrying iron ore to the established mills in the central part of Canada, there are equally great advantages in assuring steel



7. 19S1

[Stage Direction]
supplies at seaports both on the Atlantic and the Pacific, so that we may be shipping steel in the form of steel to our friends and allies in other parts of the world.
That is part of the quotation from the remarks of the leader of the opposition. There is also the question of the development of power. I pointed out a while ago that I think we have a vested interest in power development in central Canada. It constituted a part of the assets when we entered confederation. The minister pointed out that there was a potential of 9 million horsepower involved in the St. Lawrence waterway project. The United States has only 2,900,000 horsepower out of the total of 9 million: 1,800,000 at Niagara and 1,100,000 at the international portion of the St. Lawrence. The total amount developed at the present time is 3 million horsepower in Canada and the United States, leaving a balance of 6 million to be developed.
That means the continued concentration of industry in central Canada, and little is being done to encourage industry in eastern Canada today or in the future. I think the maritime provinces should also be provided with cheap power in order that we may develop our resources and industry. It has been pointed out in the house at different times that we have great power resources in the maritime provinces. About two years ago the possibilities of the St. Mary's-bay of Fundy tidal development were placed before the house, and a reply was made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). He said he would look into the matter, but that is all I have ever heard of it. He was going to look into it. Two million horsepower are available there. If it were in central Canada it would not only be looked after but the minister would be going up and down the St. Lawrence river to see where it was, whether it could be developed and what could be done for central Canada. He never comes to Nova Scotia to find out. Neither does the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) come down there to look at the power possibilities.
Lionel Chevrier: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to make a misstatement. I have been to Nova Scotia many times. I have been to Halifax, Saint John, Charlottetown and several other places. I try to make an annual trip to the maritime provinces but unfortunately it has not been possible for me to do that in the last two years.


Percy Chapman Black: I am not saying the minister has not gone to Nova Scotia and the maritimes; it would be a strange thing if he had not. But I say he has never made a personal inspection of the Chignecto canal
St. Lawrence Waterway project. He has never made a personal inspection of the St. Mary's-bay of Fundy power project where it is said that 2 million horsepower can be generate^ on an economic basis.
I doubt whether he has ever visited the Passamaquoddy region where it is possible to develop a million or two million horsepower. He is not interested in these things because they are in the maritime provinces.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to let my hon. friend make the statement that I am not interested in these projects. That is an unfair statement for him to make. I am sure he does not want to imply that I am not interested in projects in the maritimes, because that is not so. I am stating now that I am.


Percy Chapman Black: I am glad the minister is interested. He has made that statement, but I am merely saying that I doubt whether he has ever visited the Chignecto project. I doubt whether he has ever visited the Quoddy project. The cape Split-Minas basin project was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). We have been told for years and years that millions of horsepower are available there if they can be harnessed, but I do not think any interest has been shown in the harnessing of that power at cape Split. The same applies to Petitcodiac. There are sources of power in that part of the country, and we require cheap power in the maritime provinces. The development of the St. Lawrence project would not be undertaken at this time unless $600 million of Canadian money was being made available for the building of the seaway, thus making possible as a secondary undertaking, almost a primary undertaking, the construction of this power development in central Canada.
We also have great power resources that could be made available as the result of the use of coal. Important developments in power from coal are taking place in Nova Scotia at the present time. Electric power can be generated by this means comparatively cheaply. In my own county of Cumberland the Canada Electric Company, a private enterprise, is developing considerable power but it is not in great quantity, and it is not as cheap as it should be. The cost is not comparable with the cost in central Canada. I think that industry should be subsidized in its use of second grade coal. Some assistance should be given by the federal government to aid in securing the low price coal that is available in the seams in my county in order that industry may be developed and in order that steel smelters may be started in the Chignecto canal region.
The same applies to Pictou county. It has large deposits of low quality coal that might
1682	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway be used for the development of great power undertakings. The same thing applies to Cape Breton. In the coal areas there are enormous deposits of splint, I think they call it, or low grade coal which can be used and which is being used at the present time. This low grade coal can be used for the generation of cheap power. We want some encouragement from the minister and from the government to the end that if this development takes place, the funds will be made available in eastern Canada so that we can supply the electric smelters and other big enterprises in Nova Scotia with cheap power, and that the amount will be comparable with that which is being made available for these enormous expenditures in central Canada at this time. So far there is nothing for us. There are great possibilities in Nova Scotia in the way of waterpower projects and the development of coal-electric power.
It is my opinion that, if the minister had the real interests of Nova Scotia at heart, in view of the hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore to be developed in the Quebec and Labrador deposits, the government's policy would be to see that 2 million to 5 million tons of it is refined in the smelters in eastern Canada, by coal or electricity. But no such undertaking has been given to us under this legislation. A menace appears to be facing our present established industries there, as set out by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings and my seatmate, the hon. member for Royal. Great misgivings are felt as to the effect of this development in eastern Canada. But no assurance is given that we will in any way have any development in order to assist us, no matter how old, how definite and how important have been our associations with the establishment and development of Canada. I do not believe that it would be out of place for the government to make available $200 million and more in order that there might be' a development of power, the refinement of iron ore, the building up of basic industries and the establishment of refining industries in eastern Canada, to the end that we might share in the development of Canada, as is our right. That is something that is owed to us by the rest of Canada.
As I said earlier in my remarks, members of the house with whom I have talked and others wherever I go in Ontario, in Quebec and in the west tell me that we in eastern Canada have not fared as we should have, and particularly so in Nova Scotia, in view of the contribution we have made. Here is an occasion on which expenditures running into hundreds of millions of dollars are being made to construct a seaway which it


is claimed will develop that part of Canada, build up shipbuilding and so on, and make a great seaway free from the menace of submarines. That could be done in Chig-necto; there would be no menace from submarines there. If the Chignecto canal were built, the naval and commercial shipping could go through it and avoid going along the exposed Atlantic coast. But it never occurs to the minister that he is going to construct the Chignecto canal in order that there may be protection for our shipping and our naval interests at Chignecto.
I do not know that there is much more that I need to say, although there is a great deal that can be said. The minister talked about the expenditure for the seaway. I think that we, as responsible members of parliament, should analyse these figures. The amount of $300 million is mentioned. It is the impression of a great many people-and I am not able to judge as to the amount- that this expenditure will be at least double that sum. Since the house met last night I have taken occasion to look into what has been the experience with regard to the Panama canal.
A review of the last report of the governor of the Panama canal shows that appropriations for canal construction up to July 1, 1921, amounted to $386,910,301, less capital stock of Panama railroad, $7 million, making a net amount of $379,910,301; plus annual payments to the republic of Panama, 1913 to 1920, of $2 million; additional construction funds appropriated July 1, 1921, to July 1,	1950, amounted to another
$223,223,859, making a total appropriation for the canal of $605,134,160.
Then this report sets out these figures, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the compounding of annual interest, something which is not placed before hon. members by the minister. Further, interest on construction funds compounded annually from 1904 to 1920 totals $128,991,063, making a total capital investment of $734,125,223. A review of the operating statement of the canal for the fiscal year 1950 shows that tolls charged to shipping using the canal, including miscellaneous receipts, amounted to $24,810,323. The net appropriation for expenses amounted to $22,557,703-and we have no estimate from the minister as to what the expenses are going to be in the operating of this canal- resulting in a net revenue in 1950 of only $2,252,620. As I said, the capital expenditure for the Panama canal was $734,125,223. The total revenue for the fiscal year 1949-that is the year previous to the one I quoted-was only $534,374. The minister told the house that the St. Lawrence project is going to be

a self-liquidating one. That may be so and I hope it is; but I have my doubts, and we in Nova Scotia will help pay for it. That is the record of the Panama canal that connects world trade in two oceans. We cannot expect a project such as the St. Lawrence waterway, which serves only as an inland medium of transportation, to be any less costly. The tolls will be low because of low cost articles such as coal and wheat.
We are obliged to contribute to this cost, Mr. Chairman. We in our part of Canada are obliged to contribute to the credit that is supplied in order to build this project. I want to repeat, for the third or fourth time, that I am not opposed to this undertaking, but I want some statement at this time as to what is going to be done for the maritimes. I want it from the minister as spokesman for the government; I want it from the government. I do not think he should ask the members from the maritimes to support this undertaking, which will be a menace to the maritimes, without giving us some undertaking or some hope that something is going to be done for the development of the industries and the refinement of steel in the maritime provinces. That is the position we are in. I want to vote for the minister's resolution but I want some statement from him.


Mr. McLure:: Mr. Speaker, as nearly every other province has had quite a number of speakers on this momentous question, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) calls it, I think perhaps we might have a few words on behalf of the province which I have the honour to represent here, namely Prince Edward Island. If I did not say a few words on this occasion it might be thought that, since Prince Edward Island was wiped off the map printed in an advertisement the other day, we were still removed from the map. I saw an interesting cartoon the other day concerning the removal of Prince Edward Island from this map. It was in some of the leading papers in the east, and pictured half a dozen school boys asking their teacher, who was looking at the map contained in the advertisement, where is Prince Edward Island? With a long pointer the teacher was going from one end of the map to the other but could not find it. I am going to try to place the position of this island before the minister.
The resolution before the committee at the moment seems to be a rather peculiar one, although I must say I am not familiar with the drawing of resolutions of this kind. A corporation is to be created called the St. Lawrence seaway authority. The title seems
St. Lawrence Waterway to be rather broad, and this corporation will have absolute authority if the resolution passes in its present form. Mention is made also of the fact that the corporation may borrow amounts not exceeding $300 million. It appears that authority is given to borrow this $300 million four or five times for this one project, because the resolution says that amount is not to be exceeded at any one time. Probably the minister will have a different explanation of that sentence, but as I see it the St. Lawrence seaway authority has the power to borrow an amount not to exceed $300 million at any time it so desires.
A great deal has been said, Mr. Chairman, by the hon. members from the maritime provinces. For instance, the hon. member for Cumberland just made a speech in which he dealt with the historical aspect of maritime claims, and I consider he made a good case for the maritime provinces. We have listened also to excellent speeches from the hon. members for Royal and for Annapolis-Kings. I might say that all the speeches made on behalf of the maritime provinces have placed good arguments before the Minister of Transport. I should like to deal with the subject from the point of view of my province, the province of Prince Edward Island.
We all know that agriculture is the basic industry of any country. The province of Prince Edward Island not only equals but excels most provinces in the productivity of the soil. This fact has to be considered when we are appealing not only to the Minister of Transport, but to the government, for consideration. My province has no great industry except the basic industry of agriculture. Close to it in importance are our fisheries. In looking at this project from the point of view of an agricultural province, one can see that it is possible we shall not obtain any direct benefit. On the other hand if some benefit can be obtained for the maritime provinces, then perhaps the province of Prince Edward Island can benefit indirectly.
When the minister was introducing this subject the other day he made a wonderful speech in which he stated this was the most important subject upon which he had ever made a statement in this House of Commons. No doubt that is true from the standpoint of the great vision of tremendous benefits that will come to Canada. In his speech, however, I could not detect one ray of hope for any benefit, either directly or indirectly, coming to the province I have the honour to represent. The minister was speaking on behalf of the greatest province in Canada, namely

St. Lawrence Waterway the province of Ontario. He has the honour to represent a constituency lying close to the site of this great project. In view of this fact, he had a right to speak of the scheme in such glowing terms, and to relate what this project would mean to the province of Ontario. I repeat that I followed his speech quite closely, but I could see no ray of hope for the province of Prince Edward Island, the banner province and the cradle of confederation.
If the minister had held out any hope of a plan which would have been of direct benefit to the maritime provinces from which my province might have reaped some indirect benefit, I would have been satisfied. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to this great project outlined in the resolution before the house. I feel, however, that we should not support it unless we receive some assurance that the maritime provinces will derive direct benefits. The hon. member for Cape Breton South said that he did not care where the government wanted to place steel works for the further processing of steel. I say that we have a steel works now established at Sydney, and that is the type of thing we do want in the maritime provinces. If the minister had announced that he would expand this steel works that is in operation in Cape Breton so that it could manufacture enough steel to supply the demand, that would have met with our approval. Today they cannot fill one-third of their orders. If they want support from the government, let them get it out of this enormous sum that is to be voted following this resolution. I hope that when the minister revises his speech he will give some ray of hope to those of us in the east. I am sure it must have been an oversight on his part, but we want it put in writing this time that we are to get something; that is, if we are expected to support in every way this immense project. Of all the speeches that have been made here, I had great pleasure in listening to the leader of the opposition. In his speech on behalf of this project he included all of Canada from one end to the other. In his remarks he told the house and the minister that the maritimes had been neglected, and they should not be neglected, if this great project is to be what it could be on behalf of the whole of the Dominion of Canada.
I want to say a word or two with regard to my position. I have always said that I am not opposed to it. I know the good people of Prince Edward Island would not desire me to be opposed to anything that is in the interests of Canada as a whole, but they do desire to have something to show for their

support of it. In the maritimes we should have something directly, and it may be indirectly to Prince Edward Island, which we will gladly accept.
As I said on a previous occasion, in reading the speech from the throne I noticed there was one thing which should have applied to our province. When the government said they were going to build this seaway project they left the hope that we in the east, who had been clamouring for different things in our provinces, would now get some consideration. We felt that the government was now loosening up, as it were, and that we could now demand action on some of the projects that we have been talking about over the years but had never received down in the maritimes. I want to mention one in particular. While this project may be a great vision, we all know that from time to time great men in Canada have had great visions. For instance, it was visionary at first when some men thought that the provinces of Canada should become united. That vision became reality. After that the question arose as to where the capital of this Canada of ours would be located. That great man, Sir John A. Macdonald, when looking over the size of the grounds for the capital, had a vision of where the capital buildings should be erected. He had a vision of the greatness of the future of Canada. In talking about the grounds for the parliament buildings, and where they should be erected, he said they should begin at the east of the canal, then run directly in a straight line to what is now Queen street until it meets the river. Had that vision become a reality, instead of the small area we have, all our great buildings in this capital belonging to the dominion government could be in one great common area instead of being scattered around the city.
Another great vision was the linking of eastern Canada with the western provinces by means of a railway. That was finalized, and what a great undertaking it was. There were other great visions. Some became realities and some did not. We have this great vision of a seaway. According to the minister it is going to become a reality, and in the most rapid manner possible. As soon as it is finished it will become the chief competitor of our great railway systems. That may be quite proper. If this project is all that the sponsors say it is, then I believe it could be built and operated from tolls. We all know that the tolls from the canals in Canada today are not sufficient to take care of the burden of running them. Even if it is not a paying proposition, would it not be better for the government to say that the

interest alone on this $2 billion or $3 billion that will eventually be spent would pay the deficit of our railways to the extent of $60 million a year? Would it not be better to put our efforts into the solving of the transportation difficulties of our railways instead of taking on this new project of a seaway for the benefit of centralization in the great provinces of Canada to the detriment of the outlying provinces?
I had hopes when we asked for the development of certain things in our provinces. When we have asked for certain things such as improvements to public buildings, new buildings and improvements in transportation, and also improvement of our harbours, which was at one time the policy of the Liberal party, the reply we received from the ministers was: No money, no material. Yet at the same time they have this enormous surplus, greater than they ever dreamed of getting. They have more now than they ever thought of. They have $640 million in the first half of the year. We find that Prince Edward Island has paid toward that surplus a little over $4,800,000. That is quite a lot of money when you are asking for only a few things that do not cost much over $1,500,000. We have been definitely promised certain things. It reminds me of this. When the Liberal party comes before the people they always have so much to offer but so little to give. This has been very true in our case.
I should like to deal for one moment with a project which, it seems to me, would come within this resolution, because it refers to transportation. I have in mind the harbour improvement we have been promised time and again by all political parties. Only one of those parties, however, has made any attempt to carry out those improvements. That was the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden.
Here is an opportunity to carry out the St. Lawrence seaway and at the same time help us indirectly through improving our harbours, so that we may ship our products again and so that we may export and import. This may not be important to some who are smiling: I know they have no interest in the matter. But I say to them it is of vital importance to those of us in Prince Edward Island. Let me tell the minister and the committee that for years we have been given definite promises of harbour improvements, but those promises have been passed by.
I believe the promise is set out in one of the Liberal platforms and it was also being stated in the platform of the local Conservative organization, as well as in that of the
St. Lawrence Waterway
federal organization. A plank in the platform of the provincial Liberal administration states this:
We will urge upon the federal government the necessity of improving the Charlottetown harbour and waterfronts, and that the railway marine slip, for which a site has been surveyed, must be built immediately.
We shall also explore new avenues to keep our people employed in the urban centres, and to introduce and develop new industries in our province.
During the last election campaign this was a vital subject, and one to which both major parties were committed. These harbour improvements would mean a great deal to Prince Edward Island and to the city of Charlottetown. We have a good harbour location. It may be that, in common with the harbour at Montreal, Jack Frost occasionally pays a visit so that shipping may be held off for two or three months, or perhaps four or five months, in a year. On the other hand the fact is that we have good harbour facilities and, as the Duncan commission pointed out, we are entitled to have that harbour maintained in proper condition. One of the recommendations by the Duncan commission in 1926 was to that effect.
I hope we will receive some assistance after this resolution is passed, and the seaway is being built. Perhaps I might make some further comments about the indirect benefits that would accrue to Prince Edward Island if an additional plant were added in Sydney, and if perhaps 10,000 more people were employed at that point. This would give us an opportunity to supply foodstuffs to those people, and Prince Edward Island is well suited to do that. We would have a market at home, a market at our own door, for all the foodstuffs we could produce, if we were permitted to supply additional steel works that could be erected in Nova Scotia.
I would repeat that harbour improvements would constitute a direct contribution that could be made for our benefit at the present time. While I do not oppose the resolution, because I know my people would not want me to do so, because of their interest in the Dominion of Canada as a whole, yet as the hon. members for Cumberland, Royal, Annapolis-Kings and Cape Breton South have said, something should be guaranteed directly to the maritime provinces by way of an undertaking as to what will be done for us when this St. Lawrence seaway is accomplished.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a member of parliament in Canada at a time when our country is embarking upon a project of such gigantic proportions and with so much promise as the St. Lawrence seaway development. I believe hon. members

St. Lawrence Waterway from all parts of Canada have taken the Canadian view. While many of them have emphasized the need for improvements in their respective areas, nevertheless this project seems to have been given almost unanimous approval.
As other hon. members have said, the government should bring forth not only a plan for the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, the benefits of which will be reflected chiefly in Ontario and Quebec, but an over-all plan for development in all areas of Canada.
This is a power and transportation project. The minister has said it will enable the rapid development of the Canadian steel industry. It is certain that as a result of it there will be a greater impetus to the industrial development of Ontario and Quebec, and a subsequent increase in the populations of those provinces.
I am sure those of us coming from other parts of Canada would like to see the government undertake other projects which, from our point of view, are as greatly needed as this one, and which would help industrialize the prairies and the maritimes as well as help us increase our populations in those regions.
The St. Lawrence seaway plan has been under study for many years. The government is now bringing forth a measure which will bring about the inauguration of that plan. I am sorry that, thus far, it has failed to announce a much needed project in western Canada, namely the development of the South Saskatchewan river. The far more expensive St. Lawrence seaway project is being embarked upon, but as far as our project is concerned, we are given another commission. We do not know when that commission will report. In fact, I have heard it said that the report cannot be made until the middle of next summer, which will mean that there can be no commencement of that project next year. While we from other parts of Canada support the St. Lawrence seaway project, the fact that the government is bringing forward this large and expensive project at this time leaves the government no excuse for further delay in the development of the South Saskatchewan river project.
It is debatable just what benefits may accrue to western Canada from the St. Lawrence seaway project. It has been implied that the development of this project will result in lower freight rates for grain moving to world markets, which saving would be passed on to the prairie grain growers in the form of increased prices. When considering a statement like that one should bear in mind that grain prices are set at Fort William.

If there is an increase or decrease in the cost of moving grain to Fort William, there is a similar change in the price of grain to the producer. I do not think it follows that a four cent per bushel saving, for example, in shipping wheat past Fort William necessarily means a four cent per bushel increase in the price to western farmers. As a matter of fact I do not think that that result will flow.
If this project results in a substantial lowering of the cost of moving grain from Fort William to the markets of the world, that reduction in cost will be split between the western farmer and the importer of grain. The saving brought about by the St. Lawrence seaway project will benefit the prairie grain producers as well as the buyers of our grain. I do not think it is right to say that a substantial reduction in the cost of moving grain over the lakes means a similar increase in the price received by the western farmer for his grain.
During the last two or three years there has been an increase in the cost of shipping grain on the great lakes. In connection with wheat at any rate that increased cost has been passed on to the buyers of the wheat by adding a six cents per bushel handling charge to wheat obtained under the international wheat agreement. Had this project been in effect during the last two years the saving on the movement of grain over the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river would not have been passed on to the western farmers but would have been passed on to the buyers of our grain. I do think, however, over a period of time the St. Lawrence seaway will result in a saving on freight charges on grain and increased prices to western producers.
If through this measure the government is prepared to assist in the development of the lake ports of Fort William and Port Arthur then I think the government should under an over-all plan assist in the development and further use of Churchill. It is not enough for the government to lay down a plan which benefits in the main two provinces of Canada without at the same time including beneficial measures for other parts of Canada.
On a comparative basis we in Saskatchewan are more in need of power than is Ontario. The province of Ontario has industrialization and rural Ontario is electrified to a large extent. Saskatchewan lacks industries and while some rural electrification is going on, the vast majority of farms still do not have the benefits of electricity. If the farms of Saskatchewan are tc be electrified

we must have new sources of power. Unless the federal government is prepared to proceed with the South Saskatchewan plan the provincial government through its power commission will have to develop its own power site at Fort a la Corne or produce power by the use of coal. The alternative is the development of power at high cost.
The government of Saskatchewan is not at all anxious to embark on the development of new power sources if there is any chance that the federal government will go ahead with the South Saskatchewan plan. Because of the need for power in Saskatchewan, because our province needs industry, because the prairie farmers should have the benefits of electricity the same as the farmers in other parts of Canada, the government should announce immediately that the construction of the South Saskatchewan river project will begin in the spring.
The development of power in Saskatchewan will not represent a dead loss to the federal government. I have here a report on the South Saskatchewan plan over the signatures of L. B. Thomson, director; G. L. MacKenzie, chief engineer, and G. N. Munro, associate chief engineer under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; A. E. Palmer, superintendent, dominion experimental station, Lethbridge, Alberta, and Dr. C. C. Spence, senior economist, dominion Department of Agriculture, Edmonton, Alberta. This fully-qualified committee states in its report that the annual gross value of commercial energy to be produced from the South Saskatchewan plan would amount to over $2 million.
It is estimated that the South Saskatchewan plan will cost the federal government $68 million as compared to $300 million for the St. Lawrence seaway. When we consider that great benefits will result to the people of Saskatchewan from the South Saskatchewan plan and that there will be revenue derived from that plan, there is no excuse for further delay by the federal government.
I support the St. Lawrence seaway project, as I have said already; but if the government can spend $300 million on the St. Lawrence seaway project I can see no earthly reason why the same government cannot obtain another $68 million for the benefit of the people of Saskatchewan and the prairie provinces generally. I believe the government should give the house an over-all plan for the development not only of the St. Lawrence seaway, which in the main will help Ontario and Quebec, but also a plan for the
St. Lawrence Waterway development of power and the industrialization of other parts of Canada including the prairie provinces and the maritimes.


Mr. Graydon:: For a long time I have been advocating in the house and out of it, on behalf of the people in our section of Canada, that a start on the St. Lawrence deep water project should be made. They have a very strong feeling, as is the case in many other parts of the country, that this is a national undertaking which should be completed. During the last session of parliament I brought to the attention of the minister, the government and the house what I thought was a desirable course to follow, namely that we should go it alone. I felt we had lingered on the edge of the precipice of indecision long enough, that there was a limit to the patience of Canada, and that we had reached the position where we should proceed with the waterway as a purely Canadian undertaking.
It is naturally a matter of great satisfaction to me that the government has taken the stand it has and is prepared to introduce legislation to that effect. I have no desire to extend the debate. All I want to say, in what will perhaps be the shortest speech made on the resolution, is that the part of Canada from which I come is strongly and wholeheartedly in favour of the resolution and of proceeding immediately toward the completion of this great national undertaking.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask questions of the minister on two different aspects of the St. Lawrence waterway project. The first has to do with shipping. When he spoke on December 4 the minister said, as reported at page 1579 of Hansard:
For one thing, almost half the seaway traffic foreseen is in iron ore.
I had not realized that the shipping of iron ore would constitute such a large proportion of the traffic through the new seaway. That brings up the question as to what ships will be carrying the iron ore. I understand that on the great lakes at the present time iron ore is carried largely in ships belonging to the steel companies. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. Of course most of that iron ore comes at the present time from-is it the state of Minnesota?


Lionel Chevrier: The Mesabi range.


Howard Charles Green: From the Mesabi range, which is in the United States, although I presume the ore from Steep Rock is loaded at Fort William or Port Arthur.


Lionel Chevrier: Port Arthur.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to know whether there will be a similar situation with respect
1688	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway to the iron ore from northern Quebec and Labrador. Most of the ore, as the minister has said, is to go to United States steel mills on or adjacent to lake Erie. According to press dispatches, some will also go to United States steel mills on the Atlantic coast. Will the ore be carried in United States bottoms, or is there any restriction under Canadian law by which it must be carried in Canadian ships?


Lionel Chevrier: Dealing with the first part of the question as to what ships will carry the iron ore, one must keep in mind the fact that it will be some years before the deep waterway is developed and, as I pointed out in the statement I made, the transportation of the ore will bring into being a new specialized ship which will carry the ore from Seven Islands to the great lakes ports and there take on grain cargoes for the downbound voyage. That is not to say that the present ships will be excluded; the ships operating at the present time on the great lakes, both Canadian and American, carrying iron ore will continue along the same lines. There is a shortage of shipping in that respect at the moment. The ships that will move iron ore from Seven Islands up the lakes will be of a new type in so far as the St. Lawrence is concerned. There are several under construction now.


Howard Charles Green: Where?


Lionel Chevrier: Two of them are under
construction now in the great lakes yards. These ships are of a specialized kind.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any restriction on
United States vessels carrying that iron ore from Seven Islands to ports on lake Erie or the Atlantic coast? Are United States ships just as free to carry the iron ore as Canadian ships?


Lionel Chevrier: The provisions of the
Canada Shipping Act and of the agreement made between Canada and the United States will apply with respect to that ore as they do with respect to other movements. United States ships are free to come here, but I take it the ships that will take the ore at Seven Islands will be of Canadian registry. Unquestionably those that are being built now are of Canadian registry.


Howard Charles Green: I understand they do not have to be ships of Canadian registry. In other words a ship of United States registry is just as free to carry that iron ore as a Canadian ship. Is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: That will be a matter for the mine owner who will be selling his goods to determine. If he cannot charter a Canadian


ship I am sure that is what he will do. If there is a Canadian ship available I am positive that is what he will want, but if there is a shortage of Canadian ships he might seek United States ships. At this time the position is that there is a great shortage of both Canadian and American ships, but by the time the seaway will have been completed I take it there will be sufficient Canadian carriers to transport the ore up the lakes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I speak on a question of privilege?


Howard Charles Green: May I finish my questions?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Howard Charles Green: According to the minister's
statement that decision will rest with the mining company. If the mining company wishes to have the iron ore carried by a United States ship the company is free to do so. Am I correct in that belief?


Lionel Chevrier: I should not like to leave it on that basis. I would rather put it on the basis that the agreement which exists between Canada and the United States leaves it to the shipper to use either of the two.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out to the minister that the iron ore is being developed largely by United States interests. They control the iron ore. No one can question that fact. It is to be used largely by United States steel mills. I am afraid the minister is being extremely optimistic when he suggests that the mine owners will want to ship this iron ore by Canadian vessels. I hope he is right, but I think he would be far more realistic if he faced the fact that this iron ore is likely to be carried by United States vessels manned by United States crews, and that there will not be a great deal of employment for Canadian vessels, for Canadian shipyards or for Canadian crews. However, I have the answer I was looking for, Mr. Chairman. Before I go on with my other question I should be quite willing at this point to have the hon. member for Simcoe North make the remarks he wants to make.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, my colleague really answered the question for the minister. The minister was quite emphatic in saying: that the owners of the mine would surely use Canadian boats to carry the ore. It certainly is a stretch of the imagination, but probably not to the minister when he thinks United States mine owners are going to go out of their way to put their freight on Canadian boats in order to ship it to the United States ports. It is just about in keeping with what the minister said yesterday when he told us-

that the shipbuilding industry on the great lakes would be a great enterprise during a war, in that they would be inland shipbuilding plants.
The minister seems to be satisfied as long as our plants on the great lakes are operating during a war. He made the remark that he could not understand what I was trying to drive at. 1 can quite understand his not understanding when I hear these remarks from him. I was trying to get this government to do something so that our yards would not need a war in order to keep busy. May I remind the minister that the great lakes shipbuilding yards in Canada grew grass on their properties between the first great war and the second great war, and that it took this Liberal government two years to open up the Collingwood yard to build ships, and two and a half years to open up the Midland yard. It required the efforts of the mayor of Midland, of that great paper in the city of Toronto, the Telegram, and of the late member of the house, Dr. Herbert Bruce, to get this government to budge or make any semblance of a move with regard to building ships in yards that for years have been noted for their competence in doing just that, namely building ships of any kind and any type. Yesterday the minister thought he would salve the conscience of the people of Canada by saying that this undertaking will make a great wartime industry. He could not understand what I was trying to drive home to hon. members, namely that we should be thinking of industries that operate during wartime and during peacetime.


Lionel Chevrier: Nor can I understand what the hon. member is saying today.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I would not doubt that at all, because you are so convinced that your ideas are right at all times that nobody else could interject any comment in here, and you cannot see the real situation. You are too close to this waterway picture. Step back from it a little bit. Probably you have been in this picture too long.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I thought the hon. member was going to ask a question. I understood that was why he interrupted my hon. friend, and that my hon. friend gave him the floor so he could ask a question; but for the last ten minutes he has been making a speech.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Hear, hear. I am glad you recognize a speech.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra goes on with his questioning I wonder
St. Lawrence Waterway if I might make a few remarks, as a representative of a part of the country which perhaps has a great interest-


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Chairman-


William Joseph Browne: Do you want to speak? I thought you had finished.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for
Vancouver-Quadra had the floor, and he may have it if he wants it.


Howard Charles Green: There is one other matter on which I should like to get a statement from the minister. Before I go on to that, may I suggest to the minister that consideration be given to adopting a policy whereby this iron ore will be carried in Canadian ships manned by Canadian crews. I do not believe there could be any objection from the United States to a policy which will ensure that at least the great bulk of this iron ore is carried in our own ships.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The government know they cannot do that.


Howard Charles Green: The other question I should like to ask him also has to do with the iron ore; and I ask it because, as I said a few moments ago, the minister himself has placed such great emphasis on iron ore in this seaway picture. In effect he made it appear that the shipping of iron ore by the waterway was the most important feature in connection with the canal, or in any event one of the prime factors in the whole project. Has the government any plans for a great expansion of Canadian steel production?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out that that is not the minister answering.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is the right answer, though.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government any plan, for example, for expanding production by the present steel plants in Canada or has it any plan for the erection of steel mills in new centres in this country? I have in mind new sites in the maritimes-for example, in the province of New Brunswick-and in Quebec on the lower St. Lawrence, probably somewhere in the vicinity of Quebec city. Upon my visits to Quebec city I have always felt that great capital has suffered by reason of the development of the city of Montreal. It is tragic to go and see the harbour of Quebec, and note how much shipping could be handled there but how few ships are in the harbour; at least that has been the situation on any occasion I have had the privilege of visiting the city.

St. Lawrence Waterway
Then, are there any plans for steel production in the province of Manitoba? We now have the Steep Rock mine in northwestern Ontario producing large quantities of high-grade iron ore. All of it is being shipped to the United States. I see no reason why that ore could not be used, in part at least, in the province of Manitoba. Are there any plans for the production of steel on the west coast, in the province of British Columbia?
What I have in mind is this. Has the government any plans for using to the maximum our newly discovered and extremely valuable iron ore resources? What
1	have always advocated, of course, is a policy under which the Canadian people get the first opportunity to use their own resources. Hon. members will recall that for several sessions that same issue was fought out in this chamber on the gas and oil pipe-line question. What I should like to know is whether or not there is to be a Canada-first policy with regard to our resources of iron. I do not think anyone has the slightest objection to our surplus iron ore being used by our good neighbours to the south, or by any other nation. So I ask the minister whether or not the government has any plan for the expansion of Canadian steel production.
There would appear to be no such plan in contemplation, Mr. Chairman. In any event, as yet there has been no disclosure of a plan to the house. The main concern seems to be to get this Canadian iron ore down to the United States steel mills. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made that quite clear when he spoke in Washington a few days ago. I should like to quote from a report of his speech advocating the construction of the seaway, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 29. It ended with this paragraph:
But above all, it would provide the best assurance of adequate supplies of iron ore to feed the steel furnaces of the east coast as well as the great lakes.
The reference, of course, is to the United States. The head of the company which is developing the iron mines in northern Quebec and Labrador is reported as having taken much the same stand. I have here a press clipping from the Ottawa Journal of March 5, 1951, reporting the evidence given by George M. Humphrey, president of the M. A. Hanna Company of Cleveland, Ohio, before the public works committee of the House of Representatives, which committee was considering the St. Lawrence project. It reads:
His company, Humphrey said, plans to ship from
2	million to 4 million tons a year from Seven Islands-


Which of course is on the St. Lawrence river.
-to such eastern ports as Baltimore and Philadelphia, and from there by rail to the furnaces.
I presume that would be to the furnaces on the Atlantic seaboard of the United States. Then the report continues:
The remaining 6 million to 8 million tons would go from Seven Islands up the St. Lawrence to Montreal. From there part would move by rail and part on smaller lake ships to the steel mills.
The reference, of course, is to the steel mills in the lake Erie area. These figures, Mr. Chairman, add up to the 10 million tons of iron ore which is to be the annual maximum produced from the northern Quebec and Labrador mines. Mr. Humphrey, who is head of the company which is mining the ore, said a certain percentage is going to the eastern United States and the remainder to the states south of lake Erie. I am citing that to show that the main concern is to get this Canadian iron ore down to the United States steel mills.
The minister himself, at page 1669 of Hansard for December 6, 1951, made it plain he has the same policy in mind. He was answering questions which had been asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and we find these words:
In any event the point was made by the member for Cape Breton South:	Why export Iron ore? I
believe the words he used were these: To whom are we making the iron ore available? Why export iron ore? Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need answer that argument, because the people of this country answered it many years ago. What happened to our gold and our silver in northern Ontario and northern Quebec?
Then the minister went on to try to justify the export of Canadian iron ore to the United States, and he used an argument which I believe is unsound and does not do him justice. I believe it is not a good basis on which to found Canadian policy in this regard. First of all, gold is a commodity itself. It is one of the precious metals, and not in the same category as iron at all. Silver is also a precious metal, and these two metals are sold in the raw state. Any comparison between shipping iron ore to the United States and shipping gold and silver is quite beside the point. I hardly think the minister would push that comparison any further or try to convince any intelligent person that there was much in that argument.
The minister did not stop there, but went on to aluminum. He said: Look at what has happened in the lake St. John area in the province of Quebec, and in the Kitimat area in British Columbia. No one has objected to the shipping out of aluminum, and he compared that with the iron ore. The fact is, Mr. DECEMBER 7. 1951
Chairman, that there again there is no possible comparison. The Canadian contribution to aluminum is electric power, which is perpetual. It goes on and on, and that is the great feature of electric power. We bring in the bauxite from British Guiana-I am not just sure of the source-but both in the case of the development at Arvida and the development at Kitimat practically all the raw material will be brought in from outside Canada. The Canadian contribution to aluminum is the electric power derived from our great water resources. So there again there was not any basis for comparison at all.
The fourth illustration the minister used was copper and nickel. He said the Canadian National is going to build a railway in northern Manitoba, costing many millions of dollars, to take out this copper and nickel which would go to the United States. Well, the minister was far off base on that. The point was carefully considered in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines last session. Evidence was given by Canadian National Railway officials as well as officials of the Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited, the company which is to produce this nickel and copper.
What is happening there is that the Canadian National is building a line into Lynn Lake, where there are these large deposits of copper and nickel; but that copper is to be taken out and smelted at Flin Flon in Canada, and the nickel is to be taken by the Canadian National Railways all the way to Edmonton, there to be smelted in a new plant using natural gas. The bulk of the cost to the Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited is in that plant at Edmonton. I hold in my hand the annual report of this year. It shows that their whole program is to cost $28,318,000, and of that amount $17,522,000 is to be spent for a refinery at Edmonton in Alberta. They have done just exactly the opposite of what Canada is going to do with this iron ore. It is a Canadian development, of the type that will make this country great; not a case of just digging our ore out of the rocks and then shipping it over to the United States for them to refine and sell the products back to us at a vastly increased price.
Then the minister mentioned oil. I do not think he mentioned natural gas, but perhaps we could take the two of them together. He said: "We are going to export our oil to the United States." Well, the government has been very careful to take the position in the house that the oil which is going through the pipe line to Superior, Wisconsin, is not for the United States, that it is to be carried by 94699-108
St. Lawrence Waterway tanker down to Sarnia, Ontario. The government itself has been very careful to keep from getting into the position where it could be accused of sending our oil to the United States. The hon. member for Fraser Valley and I have been busy for a long time fighting out this question in the house, trying to bring about a policy whereby Canadian oil would be shipped to the Canadian Pacific coast before going to the United States. The same applies to natural gas. I think we have a reasonable prospect of winning out and seeing our policy followed; but certainly there is no basis there for comparison with what seems to be the policy of the Canadian government with regard to iron ore.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that iron ore is in an entirely different position, because iron is not of much use of itself. Iron is the basis for steel, and it is steel which is of such great importance; it is steel which should be produced in Canada. We should be putting the spotlight on the production of steel here rather than on the production of iron ore.
Another thing that worries me about the minister's statement with regard to policy on iron ore is that in his remarks last night he emphasized the great difficulties we would face if we had a Canada-first policy. The hon. member for Cumberland mentioned pulpwood. That was a very hard one for the minister to answer, but he got around it in this way. He said that in pulpwood we have no competition. In pulpwood we can do whatever we like; we can hold up the Americans if we wish; it cannot be compared at all with iron ore, because we cannot do that with iron ore; that there is iron ore away down in Venezuela; if we did not sell them iron ore the Americans would get theirs from Venezuela; that they will not buy ours and we will be in a terrible mess. That was his answer on the question of pulpwood, and I submit to hon. members that on that point, too, the minister was very far from reality.
Then he had another excuse as to why there should be no dominion policy on iron and steel. He said, why, it is up to the provinces; they are the ones who are handling the pulpwood. They fix that up for Canada. They are the only people who can deal with this iron ore. The dominion government cannot do it at all. It has to be done by the provinces. Well, I say the dominion has a few powers left yet. The dominion has absolute control over iron and steel at the moment, and if it wishes to do so it can take steps to see that the very maximum amount of iron ore that can be used in Canada will be used

St. Lawrence Waterway here. This government cannot evade its responsibilities for seeing that Canadians get first chance to use their own iron ore.
Another reason I am worried about the minister's policy, or lack of policy, on this question is that we are going through exactly the same difficulty in British Columbia today. Last year we had the Minister of Fisheries out on the coast. He was questioned about the establishment of a steel industry there. We have been desiring a steel industry on the coast for many years. We thought we had it several times. We have had many promises, but nothing has ever happened. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Vancouver News-Herald, dated November 4, 1950, headed: "Mayhew says time ripe for steel plant in B.C." He is quoted as saying:
"I say a steel industry is a must so far as we are concerned in B.C." he declared Friday.
The article goes on to say:
"This will always be a place where ships are built and steel will be needed for that. There are quite a few miscellaneous industries here now that also need steel."
I am not questioning the genuineness of the Minister of Fisheries. I have great regard for him, and I am not complaining for a moment about his attitude on this question. The dispatch goes on:
"The mill at present uses scrap as raw material." Mr. Mayhew observed.
He is referring to a small mill we have in Vancouver, which does not use raw ore but uses scrap. I continue:
"Steps should be taken, I feel, to develop raw material from the natural ore."
The minister said the ore could be provided from known deposits on Texada island, Zeballos or Quinsam on Vancouver island.
That was last November. What has happened in the meantime. Well, last summer some arrangement was made, in which I think the Canadian government was involved, whereby iron ore from at least two of these districts to which the Minister of Fisheries referred is being sent to Japan. That had to be done through the United States occupation authorities in Japan, and the United States government would have to deal with the Canadian government. But however it was done, the facts are that British Columbia ore is being shipped out to Japan and is being bought back in the shape of steel. I hold in my hand the script of a news round-up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, dated October 30, 1951, and we find this statement in the script:
Last August the Argonaut Company, a big American firm-
Incidentally in British Columbia this iron ore is being mined by a United States firm.


It is probably a great deal more American even than the firm which is going to mine the iron ore in northern Quebec and Labrador. I continue with the quotation:
Last August the Argonaut Company, a big American firm, shipped its first load of ore out of here from the new Quinsam lake development,-
That was one district referred to by the Minister of Fisheries. The script continues:
-and the Japanese promised that Canada would share in the resulting finished steel.
Today, a good eight weeks sooner than anyone expected, they are making good on their promise.
Down at Ballantyne pier on Vancouver's busy waterfront is the big 10,000-ton freighter S.S. Chuyei Maru.
A Japanese freighter, by the way.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, I would ask you to rule, Mr. Chairman, whether a discussion such as this can be brought on when we are discussing jointly two resolutions for the development of navigation and power on the St. Lawrence river. If there is not going to be some control over the discussion we will never be able to come to a conclusion on these resolutions.


Howard Charles Green: The minister himself has
stressed the importance of shipping Canadian iron ore to the United States. That point was discussed in the house last night, and I am speaking about it at this time. I have asked the minister whether the Canadian government has any plan for a great expansion of Canadian steel production, I submit I am entirely in order in pointing out what is being done on the Pacific coast at this time, because it is all part of one policy. The question is: Are Canadians to have the benefit, first, of Canadian iron ore?


Alphonse Fournier: Are you in favour of the project, or not?


Howard Charles Green: You are not going to draw me off with a red herring like that.


Alphonse Fournier: I am drawing you up the St. Lawrence:


Howard Charles Green: I have sat here, watching and listening to the Minister of Public Works for a long time. I am not going to bite that easily.


Arthur Laing: Will the hon. member say
whether having regard to qll the conditions he is in favour of the shipment of iron ore to Japan?


Howard Charles Green: No, I am not. I think it could be smelted in British Columbia; and our resources of iron ore at that point are certainly not sufficient to ship it to Japan and then buy it back as finished steel.


Lionel Chevrier: I suggest we should have a ruling on the point of order.

The Depuly Chairman: Now that I have heard the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport, and the explanation by the hon, member for Vancouver-Quadra, I am in a position to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when he says the matter was introduced last night by the Minister of Transport. I am referring to the development of the use of iron ore throughout Canada, through the deep waterways project.
What the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was saying is only incidental to the matter under discussion. I believe the hon. member will agree that what he was saying was incidental to the matter introduced last night. The practice has been to deal with the main subject, and to discuss only briefly those matters related to it. I think however that on this occasion the hon. member should direct his remarks mainly to the point before us. I think that was what the Minister of Transport had in mind. If the hon. member speaks for half an hour about the iron ore situation in Vancouver and for only five minutes about the deep waterways project on the St. Lawrence, which is the main subject under discussion, then I think he must agree that the point is well taken by the Minister of Transport.


Alphonse Fournier: The main question
would become the incident.


Howard Charles Green: I have practically completed the illustration I was about to give. I suggest the reason the minister rose was that the subject was getting a little hot.


Lionel Chevrier: I would like to tell the hon. member that he is not hot at any time.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether that is a compliment or an insult.


Lionel Chevrier: It was not meant as an insult.


Howard Charles Green: The final paragraph of this radio broadcast reads as follows:
The long-necked cranes dipping into her holds are unloading 7,000 tons of high quality steel plate worth one and a half million dollars.
That works out at over $200 a ton for the steel. On the other hand I am told by the experts that Canada would get about $10 a ton for the raw ore shipped to Japan. This is a difference of $190. The situation was summed up admirably in an article headed "The Case for an Iron-and-Steel Plant," written by Mr. C. M. Campbell, one of our outstanding authorities. This appeared in the Western Miner for June, 1951, and states:
Texada, Quinsam, and Zeballos to supply Japan.
Those are the three districts mentioned by the Minister of Fisheries as sources of iron ore.
Published information is that Utah Construction is opening up Texada: that its subsidiary, Argonaut
St. Lawrence Waterway
Mining is opening up Quinsam; and that Frobisher plans to open up Zeballos. The statement is that this ore is to be exported essentially to Japan. The operators will receive about $10 for each ton of contained iron as against a minimum of $120 per ton if made into steel here. We should not be content with holes in the ground and $10, less whatever profit is taken out of the country.
Incidentally the profit goes out of Canada.
We have to go back to the days of Esau to find the record of a similar arrangement.
Again I ask the minister whether the Canadian government has any plan for a great expansion of Canadian steel production. So far as we have been told up to the present time, the plan would appear to be a barefaced exportation of our iron ore in the raw state, without any thought being given to expanding and spreading Canadian steel production. Meantime Canada is crying to the United States all the time for more steel. That is the second question to which I would ask an answer from the minister.
In closing I would like to answer the question asked by the Minister of Public Works. I am in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway development. But I suggest it would have a far greater appeal to parts of the country which will have very little benefit from it if that development included a proper Canadian policy on iron ore and steel.
Finally, I hope the Minister of Transport will give an undertaking that the government will help the maritime provinces. Up to now no such undertaking has been given. Representatives from the maritimes who rise in the house to plead for their people are treated as though they were bad boys, and should not be making so much trouble. Perhaps that is putting it a bit unfairly; but they are being more or less pushed aside, they are just tolerated. They are not given the consideration to which they are entitled.
I wonder what the situation would be if some of those who take this unfair attitude had come from parts of Canada where, year in and year out, the people see their sons and daughters having to leave home and go to what they call Upper Canada-Ontario and Quebec-and in some cases even to British Columbia. When I have visited the maritimes I have had young maritimers inquire from me as to how they might settle in British Columbia. When one has to face that condition, where thousands of young people go to another part of the country while others go to the New England states or to other parts of the United States, he realizes that this is not a laughing matter. Then, when one sees the headquarters of great industrial organizations moving from Halifax to Montreal or Toronto-and I have in mind the headquarters of the Bank of Nova Scotia-

St. Lawrence Waterway


Mr. Winters:: The headquarters of the Bank of Nova Scotia has not moved to Toronto. It is still in Halifax.


Howard Charles Green: The Royal Bank moved from Halifax to Montreal. The headquarters of manufacturing concerns are also being moved into central Canada. I say when one sees that sort of thing going on, one wonders why every maritimer in the house is not on his feet making demands that there be some quid pro quo for the maritime provinces.
It is obvious that the great power development on the St. Lawrence along with construction of the seaway will concentrate population and wealth in the Montreal-Tor-onto-Windsor area to a greater degree than at the present time. On November 19, as reported on page 1122 of Hansard, a series of questions was asked by the hon. member for Royal, as follows:


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What is the number of industries established by foreign countries, other than the United States, in Canada, since January 1, 1946, to the present time?
2.	How many in each of the provinces, respectively?
3.	In each case, what is (a) the country of origin; (b) the amount of capital invested: (c) the product being manufactured?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	136 plants were established during that period.
2.	Ontario, 61; Quebec, 59: Newfoundland, 5; Nova Scotia, 5; Alberta, 3; British Columbia, 2; New Brunswick, 1.
None in the other provinces. I think the same picture would be found in regard to the establishment of new Canadian industries.
The maritimes seem to be dubious about this plan, and I hope that the minister will give some undertaking that definite steps will be taken to build up the shipbuilding industry in the maritimes, or to help them develop their power resources. Without power you can do very little in this modern age. I do not see why an immediate investigation should not be made of the Passamaquoddy and Chignecto canal projects, and why those developments should not be undertaken.
The minister mentioned shipbuilding. I suppose he was referring to shipbuilding during wartime, but he did suggest that destroyers would be built on the great lakes. Every destroyer built in Canada during the last war was built in Halifax. Why on earth should Canadian destroyers be built on the great lakes where they would be frozen in for perhaps five months in the year? Certainly there is no reason why destroyers could not be built in Halifax. I do hope that the minister will be able to give some assurance
IMr. Green.]
to the members from the maritime provinces, something a great deal more definite than he has given thus far.


Mr.   Browr.s@St. John's West: Mr. Chairman, as a representative from Newfoundland I feel I should have something to say about this project which has been looked forward to by the people of Newfoundland as one that will be beneficial to them. As everyone knows, Labrador is an appendage of Newfoundland containing around 110,000 square miles. Until a few years ago it was regarded as being only a source of fish and the site of the operations of the Hudson's Bay Company and Indian trappers. In 1936 the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company was formed to explore the mineral discoveries that had long been reported by geologists. Many people in Newfoundland were most enthusiastic about the possibilities of the iron ore development in Labrador. That was during the days of the commission of government and a large concession of 20,000 square miles was leased to this company for a term of years.
That company is controlled in Canada. I have before me the Financial Post Survey of Mines, 1951, which gives the names of the directors. Mr. Timmins is the president and the company is controlled by the Hol-linger Mining Company .which owns the larger proportion of the stock, and M. A. Hanna and Company, holding the minor interest. This parent company has made agreements with other companies, including the Iron Ore Company of Canada which was formed in Wilmington, Delaware, and which is financed by a group of United States steel companies including Armco Steel Corporation, Hanna Coal and Ore Corporation, National Steel Corporation, Republic Steel Corporation, Wheeling Steel Corporation and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company. That company is also associated with Hol-linger Consolidated Gold Mines, Hollinger North Shore Exploration Company and Labrador Mining and Exploration Company. There is also the Hollinger-Hanna Limited, which is a Canadian company formed in 1949 to manage the operations for ten cents per ton. Then there is Hollinger North Shore Exploration Company Limited which was formed in 1942 and which received a number of concessions from the province of Quebec. That company is working in conjunction with Labrador Mining and Exploration Company of Newfoundland because the properties in Quebec and Labrador are contiguous.
I am sure everyone will agree that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra takes second place to nobody in this house in his patriotic desire to see the industries of Canada developed and expanded. At the

same time I am sure he must recognize that even in connection with an industry of which he knows so much, the oil industry, the principal interests are from the United States. We must look to the richest country in the world to provide funds for the development and exploitation of our natural resources. We in Newfoundland must look outside. Before confederation we were told that Canadian capital would pour into Newfoundland to help in the development of that province, but unfortunately that has not been the case. The only capital we have at the present time to develop the industries of Newfoundland- is English and American, with a combination of Canadian and United States capital in connection with this development in Labrador.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has stressed the desirability of the government promoting the smelting of iron ore in this country. I hope I do not do him an injustice when I say that the hon. member for Cape Breton South seemed to me to favour nationalization, that the government should take over the business if private enterprise is not willing to do it.


Clarence Gillis: I want to correct my hon. friend. I never used the word "nationalization" and I am not responsible for his interpretation.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member did not use that word, but he suggested-even the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra suggested-that the government should take steps. It would be a great departure from the policy that has been pursued in the past in the development of the great industries of this country if the government should go into industries of that kind. Only the other day the people of England turned out the Labour government because it had gone in for the nationalization of steel. It is certainly very questionable whether the government could do as good a job as private enterprise.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, is that in order?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon. member will realize we are not engaged in a discussion of private enterprise versus nationalization or vice versa.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, if what I have to say in connection with the use to which the iron ore is to be put is not relevant, inasmuch as the principal reason for building the waterway is to carry it to the mills, then I do not know what is relevant in this discussion. The minister himself has said that the chief commodity which will be transported through the canals
St. Lawrence Waterway will be iron ore. Therefore I feel it is a matter of very great importance, especially when the question has been so widely discussed by previous speakers, to make a passing reference to it, which is all I intend to do. If I may, I should like to say that we are perhaps looking too far ahead. It will take several years to build the waterway. It will take several years to build the railway and bring the mines to the state where the iron ore can be marketed anywhere.
Furthermore I want to point out-and I believe this is relevant-that we have other iron ore mines in Newfoundland. There is the iron ore mine on Bell island which is owned by the company that operates the coal mines at North Sydney, Sydney and elsewhere in Cape Breton. They are not able to use all the ore that is being produced at Bell island at the present time, and have never been able to do so. Up to the present, time Canada has never been able to use all the ore produced in this country. I would say most of the iron ore produced in Canada is exported somewhere. We export iron ore to Germany, the United States and England.
I should also like to make reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) concerning his desire that Canadian ships should carry the ore to market. May I point out to him that would be a restriction upon the companies operating the mines that might be prejudicial to their interests and might be a burden upon them. They might not be able to meet it. As he pointed out, iron ore sells at a very low price, between $5 and $10 a ton. Therefore in the export of iron ore at so much per ton it might be a matter of great consequence to make a beneficial contract at the best rates possible for transportation. English and Norwegian ships are also engaged in the transportation business to a very large extent. If, as is possible, this valuable high grade ore may be shipped to England, Germany, The Netherlands and places along the Atlantic seaboard, it may be most desirable to have other ships in addition to those of Canadian registry. I doubt very much whether Canadian ships can handle even a small proportion of the production of the mines.
I am sure everyone will agree that it must be a proud occasion for the Minister of Transport, as he told us the other day, to be introducing these resolutions in the house. Coming as he does from the city of Cornwall, where all his life he has looked upon the great restless St. Lawrence passing by his door, some time in the past he must have visualized what is now about to happen. I
1696	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway think we can all agree with him it is a matter of pride that he should be the one to introduce these resolutions.
There are two resolutions, one dealing with the development of hydroelectric power concerning which there has not been much criticism. There cannot be any, because it is a natural resource that belongs to the province of Ontario and the state of New York. Its development is not going to cost the dominion a cent. No claim can be made upon the dominion's taxpayers. Therefore it is a natural development which the Ontario government is proceeding with, in the first place for the benefit of the people of Ontario, and I believe indirectly for the benefit of all the people of the dominion. The other feature is the waterway; that is the one that has given rise to the criticism that has come from this side of the house. Naturally I sympathize with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and the other speakers from the maritimes who feel that government funds are now going to be invested in a project that seems to hold within it possibilities of damage and even, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, ruin to their coal industry. I am not so pessimistic as he is that the industry cannot stand the shock of further expansion of the transportation system of Canada. No one who has criticized this measure has been so bold as to say that he is opposed to it because it too is a natural development.
Many years ago in the early days of the exploration of Canada les coureurs des bois, French soldiers and missionaries did not hesitate to travel upon the waters of the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa through the rapids for purposes of exploration and to ascertain the resources of the country. It seems to me that in the second half of the twentieth century the government should be criticized if it did not do something to improve the system of waterways beyond its present condition. Anyone who goes to Cornwall today cannot help but feel somewhat astonished at the poor condition of the waterways in that area, and that the proposed development is not only opportune but seems to have been too long delayed. It should have been proceeded with long ago.
When one sees the magnificent locks at Sault Ste. Marie and realizes what has been done in that area, and compares it with the condition existing near Cornwall, one has ground for saying that the Dominion of Canada has been negligent in its duty rather than complimenting it on being ambitious and forward looking. Members from the maritimes have often expressed a certain
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West;. I

criticism of the government that is associated with a feeling of envy of the two central provinces, Ontario and Quebec. It seems to me we have no right to envy these two provinces that have been so graciously endowed by Providence with such marvellous natural advantages and tremendous resources. The St. Lawrence and the waterway system right through to the head of the lakes are a tremendous asset to both these provinces. I cannot see that it is a disadvantage to the rest of the country that industry should be expanded to the extent it has been in Ontario and Quebec, because it means that goods are being produced in this country' that formerly would have been imported from other places. They are being produced in large quantities and are of high quality, thus giving people value comparing favourably with that of the goods they used to import from elsewhere.
When hon. members from the maritimes speak of the decentralization of industry, I wonder what they mean. I feel that what they really mean is that there should be more industries in their home towns. Certainly I can understand every hon. member wishing to see his own home town developed as rapidly and broadly as possible. But, sir, there is such a thing as decentralization even in the central provinces, and it exists today. While I have not a great knowledge of the subject I feel that the little towns and smaller cities in Ontario and Quebec are examples of decentralization. They are not worth an atomic bomb, yet most of them contain industries of considerable proportions and of great value to the people who live there. Decentralization was made possible by the development of hydroelectric power, and I doubt whether in any other area of Canada, or anywhere in the world, electric power has been better developed, preserved so carefully, or so highly thought, of as in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The decentralization that exists in those provinces means that electric power can be supplied to almost all of their villages, towns and cities. There is hardly any point in the two provinces for a long distance from the rivers where the power is developed that electricity is not extensively used.
My hon. friend who has spoken so much about decentralization is no doubt thinking of the industry that exists in the cities of Montreal and Toronto. I feel that is his main objection. He was not thinking of the smaller towns in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec where industries are established. But, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me difficult for the federal government to interfere with expansion of that kind. I have heard my hon. friends on this side of the house speak of the abnormal developments in the city of Toronto.

During the past few years many industries have established themselves there -and millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions, have been invested. But once again we must look at the natural advantages these two cities possess. With their geographical location in the centre of great populations, as they are, they are the natural places for industry to be established.
It seems to me, however, that the government, in developing a waterway like this, even if it is justified in doing it-and I am sure it is-must nevertheless give an ear to the complaints that come from the maritime provinces. They feel that they are being overlooked. My hon. friend who sits opposite me at -the moment, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, I am sure must be thinking of the great dock in the city of Saint John that is so often empty when it might have shipping there to be repaired or ships being built. I suppose it is the largest dock in Canada; if not, it is one of the largest.


Mr. Riley:: Drydock.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, the drydock. It is -a sad thing that the people of Saint John have to look upon that dock and see it not in use. Many hon. members and many people outside -this chamber often express the opinion that the government should be run like a business. That is a theory with which I have never agreed. I think it is entirely unsound. A government is not a business. In my opinion-, to express the matter in my own simple way, a government should be like a family, and the government should look after those parts of the country which are not so highly endowed with perhaps greater care than those parts like Ontario and Quebec which already have benefited so greatly from the gifts of divine Providence. So if in the maritime provinces, especially in the province of Nova Scotia, there is not the natural resource of water from which electric power can be developed to be sold cheaply, still there are great resources of coal which can be converted into electricity.
In that respect I think the federal government may be able to be of some assistance. If it is found that the development of electricity in Nova Scotia or any other province must be done at a higher cost than when it is produced from the natural resource of water on the St. Lawrence or on the Ottawa, it seems to me there is a case to be made out for a subsidy to those provinces where the electricity cost is so high. In the matter of freight rates the government is doing a similar favour to this province. Perhaps I am not using the right word when I say "favour", but it is showing proper consideration to this province when it adjusts the
St. Lawrence Waterway freight rates so the manufacturers in the maritime provinces can get their products on the market in the central provinces, which have large populations, more or less on the same footing with the manufacturers in the central provinces. In this and in other things, too, I think what is required is for the federal government to be sympathetic.
I know the minister himself is extremely sympathetic to any reasonable argument that is put before him. As he sees this great development mature; as he watches it frequently from his home; as he looks out upon the St. Lawrence and sees that flood of water being converted into electrical energy; as he visualizes the ships going up the St. Lawrence, let us hope they will not only go up with iron ore, but that they will go up with coal from the collieries in the constituency so ably represented by my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and also other products from the maritime provinces, even if they have to be assisted, as they are assisted in their transport by railway. Let us hope those products will be coming from these provinces in great quantities, and that this development which seems to me to be so beneficial to the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec will also in the long run prove beneficial to all the other provinces of Canada.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I am rising at this point merely to try to straighten out the mind of the hon. member who just took his seat, if that is possible. As I sat and listened to him, I was amazed. First he is in complete opposition to the government of Newfoundland in the methods now being employed to create subsidiary industry in that province.


William Joseph Browne: Yes. I am absolutely opposed to that; certainly.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to know that the people of Newfoundland will be fully aware of that fact; because after years and years of the kind of development visualized by my hon. friend, Newfoundland stood as a rather badly undeveloped and in every way neglected section of North America. In 1944 I heard a representative of the British government make a report to a meeting in London. The hon. member for Melfort was there at the time.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member is out of order now?


Mr. Sinnoii:: Oh, sit down and take it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps we might give the speaker a chance to make his point, so we may find out whether or not he is in order.
1698	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway


Clarence Gillis: I can understand the impatience of my hon. friend. He is an ex-judge; he has been in the position where he called the shots and whether you liked it or not that was his judgment. He made a poor job of assessing my evidence. I may say to my hon. friend that I am getting around to his ideas as to developing the province from which he comes. After listening to the report of that commission of government on the educational standards, the economic backwardness, the lack of sanitation and everything that was not modern in this world, if I had not known the section of Canada that was being referred to I would have thought the representative of the British government was describing a section of South Africa where civilization has just gone in to make a survey.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Gillis: If my hon. friend will just permit me-


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for St. John's West is rising on a point of order.


William Joseph Browne: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: On a question of privilege, I should have said.


Clarence Gillis: He cannot do that while I am making a speech.


William Joseph Browne: Will the hon. member sit down?


Clarence Gillis: The chairman is still in control of this committee.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Now that I am standing up, I will have to ask the two hon. members to sit down.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. While the hon. member for Cape Breton South was speaking, the hon. member for St. John's West rose on a question of privilege.


William Joseph Browne: Yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Now the hon.
member for Cape Breton South will have to wait until the hon. member for St. John's West has stated his question of privilege inorder that I may ascertain whether or not it is a real question of privilege.


William Joseph Browne: The hon.
gentleman is referring to a report made by a member of the commission of government in 1944. He has not mentioned his name.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must advise the
hon. member that is not a question of privilege, but it is a matter of clarification. The hon. member should have risen on a question of order, but if the hon. member for Cape Breton South does not resume his seat thereby acquiescing to the member for St. John's West interrupting him, then the hon. member for Cape Breton South cannot be interrupted. Upon the conclusion of the speech by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the hon. member for St. John's West may rise and clarify the matter. As a matter of fact that is what the hon. member for Cape Breton South is doing. He has risen to clarify some points mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's West. When the hon. member for Cape Breton South has concluded his remarks, the hon. member for St. John's West will have the privilege of doing likewise.


William Joseph Browne: The hon.
member is clarifying some comment, but is it necessary for him to go back into the history of 1944 to mention certain remarks? Those remarks are unjustified and untrue.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon.
member will realize that it is not for the chairman to say whether or not these things are true. When the hon. member for Cape Breton South has concluded his remarks, the hon. member will have an opportunity of clarifying that point.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
him to mention the name of the commissioner?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Joseph Browne: I shall not sit down. When the hon. member refers to a member of the commission of government, I suggest to you that he should give the name.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member
for Cape Breton South has the floor, and is not to be interrupted unless he consents.


Clarence Gillis: I would not be on my feet at the moment if it were not for the fact that the statements made by the hon. member need clarification. He raised the question whether or not the development of this country should take place in a certain way. I am merely pointing out to him, in view of his ideas as to how this country should be run, the circumstances which prevailed before the present Newfoundland government undertook to create and assist industries in that province. If he wants things to remain as they were before confederation, and to quarrel with what is taking place in his province now under government direction

and guidance, I think that should be made plain for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland.
In his remarks the hon. member stated that I had suggested this project should be nationalized. I do not know where he got the word, because it was never mentioned here and it certainly is not applicable to the development proposed by the minister. What I suggested the minister should consider, and I still hope he will give it consideration, is that the authority being set up under the terms of this resolution should be set up along the line of the T.V.A. in the United States. My hon. friend professes to be a great supporter of the co-operative movement. One of the largest and most successful co-operative developments in the world is the T.V.A. in the United States, which operates under government guidance and support. I visualized this project developing in Canada under a co-operative authority along the lines of the T.V.A. in the United States, with the support and guidance of the government. In this way we might have equality of opportunity as between province and province. If my hon. friend cannot differentiate between nationalization as interpreted by his own party across this country and a co-operative development under government guidance, then the responsibility is not mine. I refuse to allow any one in this house to tie me up with the sort of thing the hon. member attempted to write into my speech.
The second point the hon. member tried to make was that the iron ore development in Ungava or Labrador was being made by Canadian capital. I do not have to answer that, because he answered it himself. He put on the record the fact that two Canadian companies were organized to receive a franchise from the government of Newfoundland and the government of Quebec, but they are merely subsidiaries of the M. A. Hanna Company in the United States. Then he tied in the whole picture just as I did three years ago, by proving that National Steel, M. A. Hanna Company and the other companies he mentioned really have the capital, and the Canadian companies are merely a front. It was necessary to have Canadian companies to get the franchise, but actually the control of the whole operation is under the M. A. Hanna Company of the United States.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I had to get up and say what I did. I refuse to be misinterpreted by anyone in this house. I am willing to sit here and let anyone express his own opinion on this project in any way he sees fit, but if he tries to tie me in with his thinking on the project then I am going
St. Lawrence Waterway to object. I am sorry that the hon. member spoiled an excellent, impartial and nonpolitical analysis of this project by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I just wanted to straighten out this business of nationalization, because I did not visualize this project as coming within my hon. friend's interpretation of that.


William Joseph Browne: Now that the hon. member has finished, may I point out to him that I was not referring to this project but to his reference to steel.


Clarence Gillis: I made no reference to steel, either.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the minister not going to answer the questions put to him by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra?


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed, I would prefer to do that on the bill. I have spoken on two different occasions for forty minutes each, and if the house will allow me I would prefer to make any additional comments on the bill.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Will the minister tell us whether his department has given any consideration to extending the authority of the corporation to be set up under this resolution, in order that it may plan and integrate the various developments that must of necessity follow the opening of this deep waterway? Does the government plan to use the authority we are setting up here, or does the minister plan to set up another authority? Does he plan to bring this project under some government department? Yesterday the hon. member for Halifax objected to any authority being given to plan and execute the work that may be subsidiary to this development. I am not particular whether they are carried forward under some government authority or by a department of the government. I certainly think an authority set up by the government would probably do a more efficient job-at least it would be freer from political patronage-than if the project were carried on directly by a department of government. But I do not think we should proceed with this waterway without giving some thought to the planning of the results that are to follow.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member will wait until the bill is tabled in the house he will get the answer to that question.


Joseph William Noseworthy: In conjunction with what others have said I simply want to say a word or two on the question of the development of the great ore bodies in Newfoundland and Quebec. To me it just does not seem right that we should have vast ore bodies in that part of Canada; that Canadians should be engaged to dig that ore, and that Canada
1700	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway should get no other direct benefit from it other than the few dollars we get from digging and transporting it. The minister's arguments for building the seaway would be much more effective if applied to the United States than to Canada. The best of his arguments are that the United States should be building this waterway and not Canada. If Canada is to build this waterway, and if the primary object is to carry the extra tonnage of ore which will result from the mining, then surely some thought should be given to processing that ore in Canada instead of shipping all our raw material 1,500 miles up the waterway to the United States and processing it, and then bringing the processed material back to Canadian mills. That does not seem to be good business even for private enterprise. I certainly would not expect a Liberal government, or a Conservative government either, to undertake this as a government project; but I would expect a Liberal government to be sufficiently interested in the economy of Canada to see that at least whatever private enterprise did process that iron ore was controlled in Canada, and that the iron ore was processed in Canada to the greatest possible extent.
I just received a copy of a speech made by Mr. Crombie, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. It is not very often that I quote the Canadian Manufacturers Association, but for once I am in entire agreement with them. He tells us that:
It is expected that during the next five years over two and one-half billion dollars will be spent on the development of our resources.
He goes on to say:
By 1955 we expect to be producing 250,000 barrels of petroleum per day instead of 80,000 . . . 600,000 tons of aluminum a year instead of 400,000 ... 19 million tons of iron ore instead of 3,600,000 . . . and 4,400,000 tons of primary steel instead of 3,700,000 tons.
According to Mr. Crombie we are going to produce 19 million tons of iron ore instead of 3 million tons, but we are going to produce only 4 million tons of primary steel instead of 3,700,000 tons at the present time. He complains of the fact that Canada is exporting most of its raw materials to other countries instead of processing those materials in Canada. Since he is a manufacturer, of course, and interested in manufacturing, I can understand his point of view. But 1 agree with it.
I think we all agree that Canadians should not continue indefinitely to be diggers of canals and carriers of iron ore for the United States or any other country. Canadians should use these natural resources for the development and the benefit of Canada. He goes on to say:
According to the latest available figures, more than half of our farm products are exported as raw 

materials and more than half of our forest products are exported either as raw materials or in a partly manufactured state. It is obviously better for the national economy to export flour rather than wheat, shoes rather than hides, and paper rather than pulpwood. Why should we export wood pulp and import artificial silk?
The more we process our raw materials in Canada, the more we buy Canadian-grown fruits and vegetables, both fresh and processed, the more we buy Canadian magazines, the more we patronize Canadian authors and artists, the more we employ the services of Canadian engineers and contractors, the more employment will be provided in Canada, the more stable and healthy our economy will be, and the higher the standard of living all Canadians will enjoy.
It is with that thought in mind, Mr. Chairman, that I would say the Canadian people are becoming sick and tired of this policy which the government seems to be following, namely that all Canada can do is produce raw materials for export to other countries in order that they may be processed there. I had hoped, as did the hon. member for St. John's West, that when this great discovery was made in Labrador some great benefits would accrue to that part of the country and to Newfoundland, and not just the opportunity to go in there and dig ore for a few dollars a day. Knowing the power resources of the region, knowing there is coal and limestone in the adjacent province of Nova Scotia, I had thought that probably even private enterprise-I did not expect either the government that was then in Newfoundland or the government in Canada would have been farsighted enough to develop that as a publicly owned project for the benefit of the people-would be farsighted enough to see that an industry could be established there where the raw materials are in such close proximity. Instead of that we give foreign capital control of 20,000 square miles of mineral rights. We build 350 miles of railway; we dig a canal up through 110 miles of the international part of the river, and we do it all so that the Americans can get Canadian ore for their plants in the United States, while we Canadians are satisfied with the few crumbs that fall from their table, crumbs in the way of a few dollars for digging the ore and a few dollars for floating it up to the United States mills. I submit that before this project is completed, and while it is still under review, the government should give some consideration to seeing that steps are taken to provide for the people of Canada the greatest possible social benefits that could accrue from an undertaking of this kind.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the other night I said I would support this project. In order to have the record straight let me

quote my words, as they are recorded at page 1590 of Hansard. I said:
Whatever is done we must keep in mind the maritime provinces. We must remember that those provinces should be given the opportunity of growing into the great and happy areas the Creator intended they should be, and that they should not be trailing in the wake of federal policy in this nation, greatly to their disadvantage, as has been their unhappy experience in the past.
This project is one of the most serious, from the standpoint of the maritime provinces.
And again:
We have not had the opportunity to study the project deeply enough to see all the possible pitfalls, but in a general way it would appear to be a good thing for Canada.
And again:
Ultimately what is good for Ontario and Quebec is going to be good for the rest of Canada, if Ontario and Quebec use the common sense they ought to use.
And I closed with these words:
I repeat that Alberta and the Social Credit movement will support this great project.
The context of my remarks makes it completely clear that our support of this project will be contingent upon the establishment of the fact that the project is not going to injure any province in Canada; in fact, that all the provinces of Canada shall be benefited. Up to the present time I must say I have not been very much impressed as a result of all that has come out in the debate. I was moved last night by the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I have a high regard for the hon. member. I believe this house is deeply indebted to him and, while perhaps it is not in good taste to make comparisons, I doubt that his province ever sent to the House of Commons a man who reflected more credit on it than this man has done. He said, as reported at page 1675 of Hansard:
Instead of hurting my case all he has done is confirm what I suspected right along, that there is no intention to look after maritime needs.
A question may be raised as to whether or not that is correct, but I believe the hon. member was justified in his statement. I should like to add to what I said in my closing remarks the other night a further expression which, I suggest, is clearly indicated by the context but which was not stated in so many words. I express this as the attitude of the Social Credit group: "I repeat that Alberta and the Social Credit movement will support this great St. Lawrence seaway project, provided it is established that it means a benefit to each of the provinces."
The question may be raised as to whether we are entirely in order in discussing that matter in this debate. Our maritime friends have expressed themselves effectively and 94699-109a
St. Lawrence Waterway convincingly time and again in the debate thus far. I believe that in so doing they were completely in order, and that we would be in order to go forward to an even greater extent with a general discussion as to what impact this development is going to have on the maritime provinces. I am the more convinced that it would be in order by reason of the fact that the minister himself, as reported at page 1579 of Hansard, used these words:
I have mentioned already Newfoundland's interest in the Labrador development. Beyond this, the four maritime provinces would get a new and low cost transportation route to the heart of the continent. They complain now with some justice that there is no effective water competition to keep down the rail rates. Well this is it. There can be no doubt but that it would bring new opportunities to explore in pulpwood, wood pulp, paper, lumber, specialty agricultural products, minerals and other products.


Clarence Gillis: Say that a little louder.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend interjects, but I well remember the essence of the debates on the freight rate legislation both in the house and in the committee. It was said that the maritime provinces required a greater opportunity to move their commodities into the markets of central Canada. This will provide a cheaper route than the one which already exists, and I am sure, knowing the mari-timers as I do, that with the initiative they possess they will make use of these many advantages.
I was considerably impressed by the minister's statement at that time. I thought he did it beautifully, and that he had behind his statement a good number of substantial arguments. But I must say I was somewhat disturbed last night when the hon. member for Cape Breton South so completely exploded the minister's argument in that respect, by pointing out that by giving an opportunity to Nova Scotia to ship coal at a cheaper rate we were, at the same time, giving the United States a water route by which they could ship coal more cheaply from the American coal fields down to Montreal, in irresistible competition with the maritime provinces. This is just exactly the kind of pitfall in this whole measure that I feared.
I doubt very much whether the House of Commons has given this matter anything like as much study as it should be given before we put our seal of approval upon it. I say that, after having stated the other night that we favour the project and after having given the reasons. But after all, when I was a little boy my mother used to impress upon my mind a story that appeared in the Ontario school reader. This was the story of the little boy who paid too much for his whistle. Canada can pay too much for this big whistle, if the cost is sufficiently serious. I am very much afraid we are going to give

St. Lawrence Waterway too much for this whistle, if we fail to make adequate provision for the safeguarding of the interests of the maritime provinces.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This would not be the first time men have taken too much to wet their whistles. It is about the same kind of thing.


John Horne Blackmore: I can understand why the hon. member would use that expression.
I would have hesitated to use it, but coming from him I can understand it. I am not implying that he ever wets his whistle, but I am suggesting that probably he knows more about men than I do.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: There is nothing like good experience.


John Horne Blackmore: I think we ought to ask ourselves why it is that the maritime provinces have suffered, as they have suffered, since entering confederation. The minister closed with these words:
This will provide a cheaper rate than the one which already exists, and I am sure, knowing the* maritimers as I do, that with the initiative they possess they will make use of these many advantages.
That is just one of many advantages he spoke of, but the hon. member for Cape Breton South shot that one so completely full of holes that you would think a liner had been torpedoed; and still the minister has not made any effort to stop the holes. The minister compared the 1939 production of coal with the 1950 production and thereby endeavoured to create the impression that the maritimes were increasing their consumption of coal to such an extent that probably they would no longer have any substantial surplus to export. The hon. member for Cape Breton South showed how completely fallacious that argument was. If there are many arguments of that kind in the minister's reasoning then I think we shall have to scrutinize this whole matter with exceptional care.
Why have the maritimes had so many difficulties to face through the years? It is necessary to examine this matter in order to be able to say what the minister and the government will have to do in order to enable the maritimes to take advantage of this and all the other opportunities the minister has referred to. What happened to the maritimes when they came into confederation? In the first place, they were forced to buy goods, which they formerly had bought abroad, at a higher price by reason of the tariffs imposed by Ottawa. This made for an increased cost of production of all the maritime products into the making of which goods from abroad had entered, and thereby destroyed the competitive ability of the maritimes to sell their goods. That is No. 1. All the superficial advantages that you give to
fMr. Blackmore.!
the maritimes which make no allowance for what has happened to the maritimes' economy will be just froth on water.
What was the next thing that happened to the maritimes? They were forced to buy most of their manufactured goods from Ontario and Quebec. They were faced with a long freight haul of one thousand miles on those goods, and with a similar haul for the raw products which they desired to sell in Ontario and Quebec. Unless measures are taken to cancel the evil effects of that disadvantage, then once more any superficial advantage to the maritimes will be of no value.
Those two points are' of major economic importance. They are just plain common sense that any fourteen-year-old boy would be able to see. As I go over the tragic story of the maritimes I find that in the relatively long history of this parliament no attempt has been made to compensate them for the disabilities they suffered by reason of those two obvious economic disadvantages.
What was the third disadvantage they had? Before they entered confederation they had their own banks and their own banking policy. As a result they were able to control credit within their own provinces. Very soon after entering into confederation their banks began to have their policies influenced by federal legislation having to do with interest rates and items of that sort. They began to operate under the federal Bank Act. All too soon the banks in Ontario and Quebec began to acquire a controlling interest in the banks of the maritimes. They were thus able to influence credit policy in the maritimes. Imagine a situation where a bank in Toronto has on its board a number of men who have interests in certain manufacturing plants in Ontario. This bank is able to influence the credit policy of a bank in Nova Scotia; and when a company manufacturing products similar to those manufactured in Ontario comes to that bank-


Mr. Poulioi:: Would my hon. friend be kind enough to tell us what connection this has with a prospective seaway?


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be delighted to do that. The minister indicated in his statement, which I read, that it is proposed to remedy the situation in the maritime provinces, to give them a sort of new heaven and new earth. I am merely pointing out the things which this federal government will have to do if it is to remedy the economic disabilities from which the maritimes have suffered ever since entering into confederation.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member will admit that there is a difference between a canal and a bank skyscraper?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member recognizes that the hon. member for Temiscouata is asking a nonsensical question. That is quite obvious. This bank in Toronto would be able to influence the bank in Halifax and prevent that company in Nova Scotia getting the line of credit which it needed. I can cite evidence from the New Brunswick submission to the Rowell commission showing that that sort of thing actually did happen, that certain companies were pinched out of existence by the refusal of credit by a bank which was manipulated from Toronto.


John Horace Dickey: Does the hon. member mean that last remark to apply to a particular bank, or is he just referring to banks in general?


John Horne Blackmore: I did not refer to any particular bank; I sipoke generally. I can produce the submission by New Brunswick to the Rowell-Sirois commission, as I have it right here on my desk. However, I do not think it is needed. My general statement was that one of the things which had injured the maritimes was the fact that credit control was no longer in the hands of the maritime provinces, that it was exercised from Toronto and Montreal.


Jean-François Pouliot: To what bank does my hon. friend refer?


John Horne Blackmore: Is it necessary to refer to any bank? I think the hon. member will agree that that is a thorough possibility.


John Horace Dickey: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Do not talk nonsense. The maritime provinces have suffered enough misery without having one of the members from that province imply defence of the outrageous things which have been done.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to refer to a great banker who is dead, although there are many others alive in the same category. I would call my hon. friend's attention to Mr. Morris Wilson, the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, who was a maritimer. Also Mr. Burns, former president and now chairman of the board of the Bank of Nova Scotia, who came from Nova Scotia. Also Hon. W. D. Ross, former lieutenant governor of Ontario, who was born I believe in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. If you would give me a list of the directors of the banks I could mention many others. There is Mr. Dobson, president of the Royal Bank, who replaced another maritimer. I am sure there is no end to the list.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You could go on for hours naming them.
St. Lawrence Waterway


Jean-François Pouliot: I could go on for hours for the edification of my hon. friend. Why did he not check the list of directors of the banks before making such a statement? All members know it. He must know it and he should give credit to the genius of the maritimers in the field of business. I do not want to interrupt him any longer, but I wanted to make that correction.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Are we not getting too far from the main question?


An hon. Member:: No, it is good.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I followed the hon. member very closely. I know how he prefaced his remarks and how he has developed them to this point. He will remember that a while ago, because the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) made a passing reference to the development of iron ore in British Columbia, a point of order was raised; and I think it was generally admitted that we must discuss the question now before us.


Howard Charles Green: I was ruled in order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: These other matters must be referred to only incidentally, as passing references. The hon. member said We must find out why the maritimes have been injured since confederation and how they arrived at the situation in which they find themselves. When he began I thought he was going to give a brief sketch of the history of that period, but I did not think he was going to carry on and make his main speech on that point. What we have before us now is the question of the St. Lawrence deep waterway. If the hon. member feels that it would injure the maritimes, like other hon. members he may develop that to a certain extent but he should not make his main speech on the difficulties of maritime provinces since confederation. I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and hon. members generally. After all, if one hon. member was called to order before, for the same reasons, I think it is only fair that the same rule should apply to everyone.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your kindly and thoughtful comments but the whole situation is this. First of all may I give a little attention to the hon. member for Temiscouata. I do not blame him for trying to drag a red herring across the trail, but I have been around in the world too much to be fooled by red herrings.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about Grant Macintyre, the former assistant general manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia. He is a regular reader of Hansard, and he will be shocked.
1704	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway Mr. Blackmore: The hon. member's comment is entirely irrelevant to what I was saying. In the closing words of the passage I quoted the minister said:
. . . knowing the maritimers as X do-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member read that a moment ago. That is exactly how he started and how he justifies the long argument he is now making about the situation in the maritimes. I heard the statement made by the Minister of Transport, and I would tell the hon. member that he does not have to argue with me as to whether or not what he is saying now is in order. It is my opinion it is not quite in order. I am only asking him to be brief. If he devotes his forty minute speech to the history of the maritimes I think he will not have any time left to discuss the question before us. I should like to remind him that is what he rose to discuss, and I would ask him to cooperate. I know he is usually very agreeable in doing so, and I ask him again to cooperate.


John Horne Blackmore: I would have been all finished long ago if the hon. member for Temiscouata had not needed so much enlightenment. The point I was making was that it will be utterly impossible for the maritimes, in spite of all the "initiative" they can possibly exercise, to make a success of their affairs if they are burdened by restrictions and conditions which render success utterly impossible. That is exactly the position in which they find themselves. I mentioned the matter of credit policy as being one of the restrictions which have so impeded them that success in the long run is utterly beyond their reach or the reach of anyone else, no matter who he is or where he is. Therefore if we are going to make it possible for these people to have a chance of success we must remove these difficulties. I think I am in order, as far as I can make out. If I am not, there are plenty of other things I can talk about that will be less palatable than what I am talking about now, and I can turn to them.
The fourth cause of the difficulties of the maritimes was transportation. I do not think I need to go into detail with respect to that. The maritimers were put under a burden of transportation costs, from which they had suffered even before confederation, that tended to make it impossible for the finest initiative to make a success in the long run.
May I come back now to the discussion of the St. Lawrence seaway project. All the things to which I have referred have a distinct bearing. According to what the minister said, the project has a chance of doing good [Mr. Pouliot.l

for the maritimers in that it will give them cheaper freight rates to central Canada. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has proved that argument is completely specious, fallacious and meaningless, because the main commodity the maritimes wish to export to Ontario is coal. If in supplying the maritimers with a water route from the maritimes to central Canada, to Toronto, for example, United States competitors are provided with an equally inexpensive route to Montreal, surely there is no possible advantage to the maritimes. There is only disadvantage, and until the minister shows by plenty of statistics .and sound reasoning that there is any advantage to the maritimes I am safe in assuming the hon. member for Cape Breton South was right when he said there was no advantage at all. Similarly any other apparent advantage would be nullified by the four basic economic disabilities I have just outlined. He indicated that there is injury to the maritimes. I see no other possible conclusion than that there is going to be injury to the maritime provinces. I believe my remarks have established pretty well the position that Social Crediters will have to take unless that difficulty is cleared away. We favour the whistle, but we certainly do not favour paying too much for it in terms of Canadian well-being. If the maritime provinces are going to be injured in any degree beyond what they have suffered since 1867, then Canada is paying too much for the whistle no matter how valuable it is. I hope I have put myself in the clear so far as the chairman is concerned.
I wish to draw one conclusion before leaving this aspect of the question. The time has got to come when the Dominion of Canada as a whole, and particularly Ontario and Quebec, must take in hand the problem of the maritimes. They have got to extend a helping hand to the maritimes to bring them out of difficulties from which no amount of effort on their part can possibly enable them to extricate themselves. There will be those from the maritimes who will want to get up and make a starched front apology for that region and all that is going on there.
I have on my desk reports of commission after commission, the Duncan commission, the Norman Rogers commission and others I can quote, so it would be just as well for these members not to try to make it appear that things are fairly good for the maritimes. Conditions there are certainly not fairly good.
When the time comes for this government to take in hand the matter of providing for the improvement of conditions in the maritimes, they must take into consideration those four factors which I mentioned. If

they do not do so, then all they will be doing will be providing the maritimes with a little bit of relief to keep them alive instead of giving them the nourishing food which they need in order that they may grow into a strong, virile, vigorous part of the Dominion of Canada. In this St. Lawrence seaway project there is no evidence that any such thing is even remotely in the mind of the department which planned the project or that of the government which stood behind the department. Consequently, to try to pretend that this seaway project is going to be of any real economic value whatsoever to the maritimes is simply to be farcical.
I think probably I have said just about enough on that aspect of the whole question. I just want now to say this. The time has come when something ought to be done about this maritime problem. We have had the submissions of commission after commission. I have here submissions from the probably finest authorities in eastern Canada, time after time, showing how long these people have suffered and how earnestly they have pleaded for some consideration; but nothing has been done for them. We now have to decide whether the maritimes are going to become a great and thriving portion of Canada, able to contribute the amount of well-being to Canadians that their resources and the nature of their people enable them to contribute, or whether we are going to pinch them more and more and smother them to the extent that they just simply cannot possibly do their part.
If the minister is prepared to answer the questions asked of him by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I will take my seat while he does so. The minister says he would much rather answer those questions when the bill comes in. Let me tell the minister something he certainly must know. Just the minute we get on that bill we will be held strictly to order, under the rule of relevancy, on every single clause and phrase; and as a result it will be impossible to discuss this whole problem successfully at all. That is exactly the way it always is when we get into the bill. If the members of this committee want to have an effective discussion and want to find out the facts concerning this whole measure, the place to find out those facts is when the resolution is in the committee stage, as it is now. I am therefore asking the minister to answer right now the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I am not satisfied to have them answered when the bill is before the house.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to answer my question?
St. Lawrence Waterway


Lionel Chevrier: No. I have no intention of making any reply at this stage.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the resolution carry?


John Horne Blackmore: Not by any means. The minister in charge of the resolution has flouted a responsible member of this house. He has refused to answer a perfectly reasonable and relevant question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps I should have risen before and given my opinion as to the various conditions, one might call them, which have been put by hon. members, in certain cases, on their approval of this resolution. The hon. member who has just taken his seat began his remarks by saying that the Social Credit party was supporting this resolution contingent upon the government declaring its policy as to the development of iron ore or the establishment of a steel industry in Canada or something like that. I hope I am not quoting the hon. member's words wrongly. Other members as well have declared themselves in favour of it, but have spent much more time than is generally the practice in discussing problems which, admittedly, are germane to the question before the committee. Discussion of those problems, however, has occupied more of the time of the committee than has discussion of the resolution which I now have before me.
I am just wondering whether we should continue discussing those problems. On the government side hon. members have said they are not admitting that this resolution and the project that will emerge therefrom will create the injury which is seen by members on the other side. The matter that has been discussed is relevant, but at this time should we not focus the discussion merely on this one point? It has been said: Let us not have any more discussion on the deep waterway but let us have from the minister a statement of policy on iron ore, or on protecting the maritimes as far as the effects of this project are concerned. I understand that this is a difficult question, and I should like hon. members to think over what I have just said. What we have before us is this:
That it is expedient, for the purpose of providing a deep waterway between Montreal and lake Erie, to create a corporation to be called "The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority" with power, inter alia, to expropriate: to construct, maintain and operate all necessary works: to borrow amounts not exceeding three hundred million dollars; to establish tariffs of tolls and to employ such officers and employees as may be required for the purposes of the authority.
That is all I have before me. As was said, latitude is given. In replying to some of the arguments brought forward by some hon.

St. Lawrence Waterway members the minister had to go into the whole iron ore and steel question, and into other germane questions. I think the debate was wide in its scope, and I think hon. members have had ample opportunity to express their views. But at this point, when the general discussion seems to be almost concluded, I should like hon. members to think over whether they should delay the passing of this resolution merely because they would like to have from the government a statement of policy on a matter which to me is not quite covered by the resolution we have before us.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister should have answered that question. When a resolution is in the committee stage it is the duty of the minister to answer questions that are asked him. That is the only opportunity members have of probing into the whole problem.


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding is that the resolution is debated for the purpose of going into the general subject matter of the resolution. As it now stands, I have made one general statement which took over forty minutes. Then at the request of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I made a second statement, which took forty minutes, in reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South and some others. It is now suggested that I make another reply, the object of which will be to reply to my speech, and we will go on and on interminably. I may be mistaken, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think that is the object of the discussion on the resolution. When we get into the discussion on the bill, where we have the terms of the bill and where many of the questions which have been raised here will be answered, I think that will be the place to discuss the matters that have been taken up here.
My hon. friend says there are questions that were asked and that we will not have an opportunity of getting a reply to them because we will be held strictly to the section under consideration. But that is not the position when we get to second reading. As my hon. friend knows, when we get to second reading there is a general discussion on the first section. I will then take the opportunity to reply to the questions that were asked of me by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the other questions that remain unanswered; then I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.


John Horne Blackmore: When we get to the second reading stage of the bill it will not be within the rules for the minister to answer questions the members ask. We are undertaking here and now to commit this nation to an
[The Deputy Chairman.]
expenditure that can well amount to $600 million. Surely the members of this house have a responsibility to the public which they cannot escape, to go into every aspect of this proposition in order to determine whether or not it is expedient. How can I tell whether or not it is expedient to spend all that money on that project unless I can get my question answered? That is the point I believe the minister has to explain away.
If the minister does not see fit to answer that question, I have several more. One of the main arguments advanced for the speedy construction of this project is that it is essential to Canada's defence. Will the minister tell the house some respects in which it is essential to Canada's defence position? Surely that is a reasonable question.


Lionel Chevrier: I replied to that question last night when I put on Hansard the statement made by the permanent joint board on defence. This board has examined the project carefully and gave four reasons why it was urgent for defence.


John Horne Blackmore: Those were merely general conclusions. The board did not go into details. It appears to me as though the house ought to have some details concerning this matter. It may be argued that this is a matter of defence, and consequently should not be aired on the floor of the house. I ask this question. How in the world can hon. members of this house form any accurate estimate of any proposition if they are unable to obtain details concerning that proposition? It certainly looks to me as though the minister should give more details than have been given to justify the statement that this project is essential to Canada's defence.
As I recall it, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong because I have not had an opportunity of reading his final remarks, we were told that we would be building ships in that secluded and invulnerable area of the great lakes. Do I recall correctly, that we would be building ships up there in time of war? This is how the whole thing looks to a person who stands on his own two feet and tries to do his own thinking, just as his mother and father told him to do when he was sixteen years old. War might come within a year or two, and we cannot possibly get this project completed within five years. After we finish the project, how many years would it take us to establish slips which would enable us to build ships with any success comparable with that of the Clyde shipyards? It would take a long time to do that. Surely if an enemy got sufficient control in Britain to destroy those slips completely we would be in a bad way, even if we had that secluded area in which to build

ships. This is the way it works out to the ordinary person. I am not satisfied with the arguments that this constitutes an invulnerable area in which to build ships.
One more thing which comes to my mind is that I am convinced from the arguments of the maritime provinces that if we spent the money we propose to spend on this project to develop power in the maritime provinces and establish strongholds there, with our tremendous air power, naval power and our control over radar and other modern means of war we certainly could make any area in the St. Lawrence valley invulnerable. Instead of having a lot of enemy submarines prowling around the Gaspe peninsula as we had in world war II, we would have them safely shut out in the Atlantic. That is the common sense way of looking at it. I have to rely on the experts and the minister to answer a lot of questions concerning this matter. Those are questions my people will ask me when I go home. Can the minister go into some detail with respect to that?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not propose to go into any further detail than I have. At this stage I do not think I should. I believe the matter of defence measures and defence urgency, in so far as the seaway is concerned, might well be considered when we are in committee of a whole on the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not find myself
impressed at all with the minister's attitude in this respect. I am sure the ordinary young man and woman in Canada listening to this debate would consider the minister's reply rather flat after the splendid display of oratory he gave us in connection with the railroads and other problems. It is quite a lot short of what we believe the minister is capable of. I should like to ask the minister this question. If it be so vital in the interests of defence that this seaway be constructed so we can deliver iron ore to United States factories to be processed into steel, why is the United States not manifesting more concern about the building of this project? Why should we take the initiative? Has it not got around to the authorities in the United States that they need ore and steel? Cannot the congressmen be impressed with the need?


Lionel Chevrier: The United States have manifested great concern over it. The position of the President of the United States is indicative of that, when he states that he is willing, if the congress does not act within a reasonable time, to consent to the development of this project in conjunction with us, both as to power and navigation.
In so far as the first part of my hon. friend's question is concerned, if he will only wait
St. Lawrence Waterway until the bill comes before the house he will find the seaway project is self-liquidating. He is going on the assumption that the taxpayer is going to be faced with a tremendous expenditure. In the original statement I made I indicated that it is intended to liquidate the whole project by the imposition of tolls. Not only that, but it is also indicated that those of the present canals which will be taken over will be operated and maintained by the authority, thereby cutting the expenditures on Canadian canals to a substantial extent.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not much concerned about the cost of this thing if the need-


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I call your attention to citation 293 in Beauchesne, paragraph (i):
(i) use his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the house;
A moment ago, Mr. Chairman, you told the hon. member that he had repeated the same arguments and re-read and quoted the same parts of speeches on questions that may be germane to this resolution; but ait the same time you called his attention to the terms of the resolution. For the last hour the hon. member has been obstructing the business of the house-and I call as my witnesses everybody sitting in this house- even when the minister tried his best to answer the questions that were put to him. I would like to see him kept in order, to see if we can have this debate concluded after two days.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister has been
specializing now for the past two years in this kind of obstruction against me. I say if we let him get away with it we will abrogate most of the privileges of the members of this house.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is still out of order in imputing motives to me. An hon. member cannot impute motives to another hon. member, and I had no such motive. I try to lead the house to the best of my ability. When I see the hon. gentleman doing something I think he should not do I tell the chairman that he should be called to order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I might get into this for a moment, and without resorting to the rule book either.


Jean-François Pouliot: Peacemaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for
Temiscouata has taken the word right out of my mouth. I would like to play the role of peacemaker for a moment or two, if I may. The hon. member for Lethbridge knows that no member of this house, and certainly no one from the opposition side of the house,

St. Lawrence Waterway rises to his feet more often in defence of the rights of the members of the opposition than I do. In fact I have a copy of Beauchesne open on my desk, and I could read a citation in defence of the right of the hon. member for Lethbridge, in committee on the resolution, to seek to get all the information he wants before the bill is brought in. I do not think there is any question about that, and I assert it as strongly as I can. However, I could not help but notice, despite the fact that there are some remarks being made back and forth which are a little sharp, that a few moments ago the Minister of Transport did offer to have a discussion on all aspects of this matter when we get into committee of the whole on the bill, after second reading. He specifically said we could do that on clause 1. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra knows that we sometimes have an argument as to what our rights are on clause 1 of a bill. But the Minister of Transport has given what I think should be accepted by the hon. member for Lethbridge as an undertaking that whatever the argument may be sometimes, on this occasion we will have the right, when we get into committee of the whole on the bill on clause 1, to take up and get the answers, if we can, to the questions the hon. member for Lethbridge is asking here.
As I said before, it is well known that I like to see things threshed out in full. I certainly want to see members of the opposition have their full rights, but we had a discussion on this resolution on Tuesday from five o'clock until ten o'clock of that day. We had it all day yesterday and we have had it thus far today. I think it would serve the purpose of the hon. member for Lethbridge, as well as the purpose of the rest of us, if this resolution could get through today and we could see the bill. As a peacemaker I suggest that we let the hon. member for Lethbridge get what information he can between now and 6:15 o'clock, but I would hope that by that time he would be willing to let the resolution go through and the bill come in on the basis of the undertaking given by the Minister of Transport.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What does the other peacemaker say?


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the hon.
member for Lethbridge any comments to make on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, there is
not a doubt in the world that the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg


North Centre is the correct one. If we allow the Minister of Public Works to establish the principle that was implicit in what he said he would abrogate 90 per cent of the effectiveness of the members of the opposition in the house. There is just no answer to that statement.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The point that now seems to be rather important is the one made [DOT]by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry, I cannot hear you.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre understood that the Minister of Transport gave an undertaking that on clause 1 of the bill there would * be a general discussion, as has been the practice, and intimated that the hon. member for Lethbridge might be satisfied with that undertaking. He then went on to say that we could let the hon. member for Lethbridge get whatever information he could between now and 6.15, and then carry this resolution. I want to know whether that is agreeable to the hon. member.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, this is a
rather new thing to me. In the first place, I think the Minister of Public Works made a personal reflection on me for which he had no justification.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps
that point may be cleared up immediately after. What I would like to obtain, if possible, is the impression of the hon. member of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not prepared to
announce that until the Minister of Public Works rises in his place and makes a statement that he is not going to say that kind of thing any more.


Alphonse Fournier: Really, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman insists and lets this resolution pass I can make a good many promises to him.


George Clyde Nowlan: On the point of order-


Louis-René Beaudoin: We have a point
of order before us; we cannot have two at the same time.


George Clyde Nowlan: On the point of order, is the minister not himself out of order in saying someone is obstructing? If you refer to Beauchesne, citation 299, you will find that is one of the expressions which is objectionable and must be withdrawn at any time. More than that, Mr. Chairman, I certainly

would say that anyone was always out of order who tried to prevent any debate on the maritime provinces.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I might
as well comment on the point of order which was raised by the Minister of Public Works. He cited citation 293, paragraph 1, of Beau-chesne. I know that the hon. member for Lethbridge has been insistent, and his insistence might have been construed by other hon. members as being repetitious. Sometimes one does not follow the trend of the questions that are being asked, and it is difficult to perceive whether they are the type of repetition which would justify the application of citation 293 to say that it is obstruction of debate. In his later remarks I think the Minister of Public Works has agreed that, provided the intentions of the hon. member for Lethbridge are good-and he says they are-his point of order will not be taken. On the other hand I think the hon. member for Lethbridge, realizing that the Minister of Public Works has good intentions as well, as he said, will not take umbrage at the remarks made by the Minister of Public Works, and that we can carry on in the few minutes at our disposal and perhaps accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which apparently has some merit.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I ask the
Minister of Public Works to withdraw the remarks he made.


Alphonse Fournier: I will withdraw, if it pleases the hon. gentleman.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to make this statement. I have never yet obstructed in this house. There are others in this house who perhaps-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The Minister of Public Works has withdrawn. If he has, the hon. member has no more to say. Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 33, to establish the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ST. LAWRENCE POWER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND ONTARIO GOVERNMENTS

Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to approve an agreement between the government of
St. Lawrence Power Development
Canada and the government of the province of Ontario respecting power development in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river; and to provide further for the transfer to the government of Ontario of the administration of certain lands or property pursuant to the agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I object to this.


Alphonse Fournier: If my hon. friend will permit me,
on Monday I met the leader of the hon. member's party and the leaders of the other parties, at which time it was agreed that the discussion on the first resolution would apply to the second resolution. Yesterday during the debate I did not bring this matter up, except at the adjournment.
I now feel somewhat ill at ease, because after having these interviews with the leaders it was agreed that this resolution would go through and that the bill would be tabled immediately, so that hon. members would have it. I am appealing to the hon. member to see if we can keep this agreement.


John Horne Blackmore: The information had not been conveyed to me that this arrangement was made by the leader of this group. Since it was made, I am bound by it. Otherwise I would oppose this thing for days, because I believe we are making a very serious mistake in passing these important measures through too fast.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the resolution carry?


Clarence Gillis: I think some explanation is necessary from the minister. This resolution is completely different from the one just passed, in that it involves an agreement between the province of Ontario and the federal government as to the method of financing. Lands are to be handed over on a reciprocal basis, and so on. I would like the minister to tell us how the financial details are to be worked out as between the province and the dominion.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps briefly I might say this: In the first place it was thought unnecessary to introduce a resolution with reference to this agreement at all, by reason of the fact that there is no money passing. Under the terms of the agreement which has already been tabled by the Prime Minister, the province of Ontario is going to establish and produce its share of the 2,200,000 horsepower. But because of the fact that in this agreement there is a clause which provides for the turning over to the province of certain crown lands of the dominion, such as Sheek island,

St. Lawrence Power Development and other islands in the vicinity of the international rapids section, this was done in order that a point of order might not be raised in case someone thought a constitutional point was involved.
Really both resolutions have been dealt with in the general discussion. I have given the only reason for this resolution. That is why the leader of the house thought he had an understanding that both would be considered together.


Clarence Gillis: That does not answer the question. I have read the agreement. The reason I am asking the question is that, even after reading it, I am still not clear as to the financial responsibility between the dominion and Ontario, and as to the value of the lands. Ontario will be passing some lands to the dominion government and the dominion government will be transferring crown lands to the province. Considerable capital is involved in the transaction, and I do not think the agreement makes it quite clear.


Lionel Chevrier: The agreement certainly makes clear the question of the cost, in so far as the development of power is concerned. In so far as the lands are concerned, those will be determined when the authority in the state of New York and that in the province of Ontario, through the Hydro Electric Power Commission, have completed their negotiations.


Clarence Gillis: The authority we set up under the first resolution will have complete power in working out the details of this power agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: No, we have nothing to do with that. We have complete power with reference to the seaway.


Clarence Gillis: That is why I am asking the questions. Of course right now there is no authority at all, except the agreement on paper between the dominion government and the province of Ontario. Then the state of New York enters into it. Actually there is no supervisory authority so far as the federal government is concerned. Is the province of Ontario going ahead with the state of New York, on its own, so far as development is concerned, without any control at all on the part of the federal government?


Lionel Chevrier: If it is to be an all-Canadian project the answer would be yes. The application would be made by the province of Ontario and the state of New York to a federal body, the international joint commission. But if it is to be a project under the 1941 agreement, then the answer to my hon. friend's question is no.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 34, respecting construction of works for the generation of electrical power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMBINES LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. James Sinclair (Coasi-Capilano) presented the second and final report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on combines legislation.
George Alexander Drew: I hope the Minister of Justice will not overlook the suggestion in the report that has just been tabled, that his department is apparently not enforcing the Criminal Code.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will resume the debate on the address in reply and, if we are fortunate enough to conclude it, we will take up the resolution concerning the Dominion Elections Act; the bill to provide for the establishment of an agricultural products board; Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act, and the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State to amend the Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 10, 1951